Bert Sugar: Pacquiao is a Top-20 P4P All-Time Great

[Pacquiao'd]

he also said that floyd beats pac when they fight

[Rorschach™]

bert sugar>>>>>>>>>>>>you!

What?! Burner >>>>>>>>>> Bert Sugar.

[Rorschach™]

Sugar is a media whore, his list is not very credible and has been made to look like a joke by people who question it.

Before people start *****ing I have always had this opinion, even before Pacquaio was on the scene.

1) Ray Robinson
2) Hank Armstrong
3) Willie Pep
4) Joe Louis
5) Harry Greb
6) Benny Leonard
7) Muhammad Ali
8) Roberto Duran
9) Jack Dempsey
10) Jack Johnson
11) Mickey Walker
12) Tony Canzoneri
13) Gene Tunney
14) Rocky Marciano
15) Joe Gans
16) Sam Langford
17) Julio Cesar Chavez
18) Jimmy Wilde
19) Stanley Ketchel
20) Barney Ross

That was his top 20 from a while ago, no Ezzard Charles, Archie Moore, Ray Leonard but he has Tunney, Marciano, Johnson and Dempsey there ?, and his list get worse as it goes further down.

Sorry, I'm not buying anything that comes out of this guy's mouth.

If you think this list is credible then are you saying that Dempsey and Marciano are greater then Pac ?

I am no boxing historian so I can't answer that question. But if he put Dempsey and Marciano above Pac he has his reasons. Bert probably knows more about boxing than 99% of the us here.

[NChristo]

I am no boxing historian so I can't answer that question. But if he put Dempsey and Marciano above Pac he has his reasons. Bert probably knows more about boxing than 99% of the us here.

I cannot see any reason for having Dempsey even in say a top 40 list and that's being generous, he has Bob Fitzsimmons at 63 who a lot of historians think have a legitimate argument for GOAT.

Charles, Moore and Ray Leonard are 99.9% of the time in top 20 lists and rightfully so, but Bert says different, you're going to take his word over the majority of other boxing historians ?.

Could cut deep into his list with most of the names on there but it would be a waste of time, it's already been taken apart by other historians and most of the time Sugar has no rebuttal.

Said this plenty of times, Bert definitely knows his stuff and he has more resources then most people but he puts it all to waste, he just tell the media what they want and that's it, he has gladly put all of his knowledge aside just for his own bias plenty of times in the past.

It's been well known for a long time that Sugars list is a train wreck.



Edit: Btw I'm not doing this to discredit Pac in any way, it just makes me cringe whenever someone brings up Bert's list as a credible source or try to use it as a final word, if anything it's an insult to say someone like Dempsey and Marciano are ranked above Pac.

[Rorschach™]

I cannot see any reason for having Dempsey even in say a top 40 list and that's being generous, he has Bob Fitzsimmons at 63 who a lot of historians think have a legitimate argument for GOAT.

Charles, Moore and Ray Leonard are 99.9% of the time in top 20 lists and rightfully so, but Bert says different, you're going to take his word over the majority of other boxing historians ?.

Could cut deep into his list with most of the names on there but it would be a waste of time, it's already been taken apart by other historians and most of the time Sugar has no rebuttal.

Said this plenty of times, Bert definitely knows his stuff and he has more resources then most people but he puts it all to waste, he just tell the media what they want and that's it, he has gladly put all of his knowledge aside just for his own bias plenty of times in the past.

It's been well known for a long time that Sugars list is a train wreck.



Edit: Btw I'm not doing this to discredit Pac in any way, it just makes me cringe whenever someone brings up Bert's list as a credible source or try to use it as a final word, if anything it's an insult to say someone like Dempsey and Marciano are ranked above Pac.

Dayummm.. You seem to be very knowledgable in boxing. You're probably one of the 1%. Do you have your list of ATG? Where will you put Mayweather and Pac?

[NChristo]

Dayummm.. You seem to be very knowledgable in boxing. You're probably one of the 1%. Do you have your list of ATG? Where will you put Mayweather and Pac?

Thanks , just re-read my posts, sorry if I came across a bit harsh lol, I've got strong opinions about Sugar is all.

Answered the question before, will just quote

Will rank him when his career is over.

If I set to ranking him now I'll be holding him on a higher pedestal to everyone else and would probably lead to unfair judgment when he does retire, it's easier to do when it's all over and done with.

Same goes for Floyd, I don't like rating current boxers on an all time level until their career is over.

[rao007]

IF that's a big IF that he could beat Mayweather at 147---Pacquiao should be top 5.

[Rorschach™]

Thanks , just re-read my posts, sorry if I came across a bit harsh lol, I've got strong opinions about Sugar is all.

Answered the question before, will just quote


Same goes for Floyd, I don't like rating current boxers on an all time level until their career is over.

Alright.. It's all good man. You're one of the most sensible posters here. Cheers!