Ross Greenburg: "until Pacquiao beats Mayweather, his legacy is not complete". AGREE?

[fcastro1]

If you are going to count what guys did as teenagers at flyweight and bantamweight, then let's do it for everybody.

Oscar was a bantamweight champion at 16 in the ams.

amateurs and pros is a different sport. headgears aginst men trying to knock you out, dont even compare. that is a unique achievment. koing flyweights to welterweights. dot even try to belittle that achievment comparing it to the amateurs.

[deanrw]

Beware of this Greenburg guy. He is a GBP whipping boy for starters.

If Manny has not proved himself already then he never will in some peoples eyes. Of course those who are in position to make money off of him will never be satisfied.

As for the Floyd fight I really hope it happens. I just have some doubts about it happening now due to ego's being involved. Manny nor Floyd "need" each other. The fight would favor Manny anyway because if he did win, Floyds name would be a perfect name on his record. If Floyd beats Manny, well many will look at it as expected as Manny is smaller and has been pushing the limits for a while now.

I'm not a fan of Floyd, but fight or no fight, win or lose is still a no win situation for him. For Manny this will be seen as a freebee and win or lose, it is all just icing on the cake. It is not a good position for Floyd to be in at all, but much of it was his own doing.

[Bernie Madoff]

I would give more credit to Pac for beating Shane at 147 than beat Floyd at 147. Just cuz is lineal bro. You can't say is meaningless. Who was the last fighter to win a lineal featherweight title and a lineal WW title? Was it Armstrong? Who was the last fighter to win 3 lineal titles in 3 of the original 8 weightclasses? I think it was SRR? That is great company bro.

You can't say is meaningless cuz it is not easy to do. Cuz if it was easy somebody would of done it by now. And, nobody has. Nobody has even tried it. Or I even think come close to doing it. I don't think we will ever see anybody who come this close again. Bro is not meaningless.

But, to answer your question no I would give Pac more credit for beating Spinks or Foreman. But, I would give him more credit for Shane or even the unthinkable and maybe impossible Pavlik at 160. Than beating Floyd.

You're right in the sense that "meaningless" is too strong. "Overrated" or "Overvalued" is a better word.

As i said, pac is great. but he is great because he fought good guys and i saw him dominate. The number of titles mean little TO ME.

Zab Judah had a belt at 154, i believe. But i don't value that. I gave Floyd some credit for beating Oscar because Oscar was still one of the best ghuys at 154. not because Oscar had a belt. You know?

[jrosales13]

In truth, mayweather came back to fight Pac. Or "the winner of Pac vs Cotto".

That was always the big prize on the table. These two PPV's served almost like a mini-tourney.

Truthfully Floyd should of been the one fighting Shane in January. And, he could still be ready for Pac in May/June. Then Pac-Floyd be for all the marbles.

[sycomantz]

im a pac fan obviously but im neutral on this. legacy wise, they each have their own and as most here will agree, pac's legacy is higher than mayweather if they both retire right now. but its not a matter of who needs who in this situation, if this fight dont happen, yes there'll be a big gap in the history of boxing that will be debated on forever.

but to say pac's legacy is not complete w/o floyd on his resume is bullsh|t.

how do you say this

but its not a matter of who needs who in this situation, if this fight dont happen, yes there'll be a big gap in the history of boxing that will be debated on forever.

then in the same breath, say this

but to say pac's legacy is not complete w/o floyd on his resume is bullsh|t

contradicted yourself that quickly

[goldenglove2]

You're right in the sense that "meaningless" is too strong. "Overrated" or "Overvalued" is a better word.

As i said, pac is great. but he is great because he fought good guys and i saw him dominate. The number of titles mean little TO ME.

Zab Judah had a belt at 154, i believe. But i don't value that. I gave Floyd some credit for beating Oscar because Oscar was still one of the best ghuys at 154. not because Oscar had a belt. You know?

Zab never had a belt at 154....

[fireman_ek50]

I disagree. IMO legacy-wise, Pac > Floyd, even with Floyd beating Pac.

...cosign

[jrosales13]

You're right in the sense that "meaningless" is too strong. "Overrated" or "Overvalued" is a better word.

As i said, pac is great. but he is great because he fought good guys and i saw him dominate. The number of titles mean little TO ME.

Zab Judah had a belt at 154, i believe. But i don't value that. I gave Floyd some credit for beating Oscar because Oscar was still one of the best ghuys at 154. not because Oscar had a belt. You know?

What lineal titles did Zab and Oscar had when Floyd beat him at 154? Again yes titles are easy to win. Lineal titles are to win. 3 lineal titles in 8 of the original weightclass is even harder to win. How can it be overrated or overvalued when really only immortals do it. Oscar never did it, Zab never did it, Floyd has not done and does not seem close to doing it, think about it Duran never did it, Whitaker never did it, Chavez never did it, Arguello never did it. I can go on and on bro. There is nothink overrated or overvalued about winning 3 lineal titles in 3 of the original 8 weightclasses.

[Talisayen]

Mayweather haven't earn the right to fight Pacquiao as of yet. He needs to go back of the line after Mosley, Margarito and Cotto II.

He also needs to prove himself first and fight real WW before even considering a fight with Pacquiao.

[Bernie Madoff]

amateurs and pros is a different sport. headgears aginst men trying to knock you out, dont even compare. that is a unique achievment. koing flyweights to welterweights. dot even try to belittle that achievment comparing it to the amateurs.

Nobody belittled the achievement. You are being sensitive. Please read my posts.

The point is that if you will give credit to Pac for "starting at 106", then I will give the same credit to those guys who "started at 106" at the same age. Floyd should NOT be talking about Pac's meaningless losses as a teen. Similarly, I'm not that interested in Pac's belts as a teen.

It isn't a coincidence that the same guys who were dominating the ams are (largely) the same guys dominating the pros. Agreed?