Tweet
Originally posted by hugh grant
View Post
I think everyone, bar a small, strange few, knows that Leonard has the better resume. Talk about fact all you want Hugh, but the fact remains that Leonard has a better resume and always will no matter what Pac does for the rest of his career.
Now, to the post. Your whole thing is that Pac dominated all his opponents and Leonard didn't right? Ok. Well. Strange way to make Pac seem better than Leonard, but whatever floats your boat I guess.
Pac's biggest wins: Barrera (was knocked out and stopped in five brutal rounds and beaten on points by Jones, before Pac stopped him over 11 rounds).
Morales (beaten by Barrera, then beat Pac before being thoroughly dominated, losing every single round badly to Raheem. Then went on to have another highly competitive fight with Pac even though well past his prime by this stage before being stopped in three by Pac).
Marquez (arguably won both fights with Pac in a draw and SD loss).
Oscar (great win for Pac, despite the state Oscar was in).
Hatton (another solid win despite the fact that Hatton was clearly over and had been knocked out a couple of fights previous in a rather one sided fight).
Cotto (had been beaten up badly and stopped by Margarito in a fight in which he was competitive for the first three or four rounds. He was also competitive for the first three/four against Pac before before the ref jumped in).
Clottey (now we're just getting to the stage of fighters that aren't actually that good and using them as measuring sticks to Leonard? See, Clottey had lost all his biggest fights up to and including the Pac fight and had held a vacant title for one fight in this day of paper titles everywhere. Why is this even being mentioned as a great fight for Pac when you yourself don't mention any of these types of guys for Leonard? Kalule was a better win for Leonard than most of these guys Pac has).
Margarito (had been brutally, horribly hammered, dropped and knocked out by Mosley a couple of fights previous to Pac getting a decision over him).
Mosley (beaten by Cotto, nearly lost to Mayorga, beat Marg, lost every round bar one in a very one sided, dominant loss to Mayweather and then draw/lost to a literal crappy contender from the Contender and is 40 years old and shot).
Now, where exactly is all this incredible domination that Pac has been doing? He's been beating guys bigger (well, some of them anyways) but the fact is that they have all been knocked out before, lost decisions before and been dominated before Pac fought them, so it's not really something to base as Pac being the GOAT and having a resume better than Leonard's. He's dominating fighters who have been dominated before, are at the end of their careers and very clearly sliding.
Barrera and Marquez (first fights for both guys anyway, as the second were when each had lost a step) are the only two clear prime fights against guys who are clear HOF level fighters. He dominated Barrera who had been beaten worse than Pac did before that anyway and he didn't beat Marquez.
Puga: you kept up this stance that Leonard had only beaten two undefeated fighters (you forgot Kalule btw), as if that was also some kind of justification as to why Leonard's resume wasn't as good. How does that work?
Maybe it's better to look at it like this? Duran: had lost one fight in 70 over nearly fifteen years with about ten of those as a champion. That loss was about eight years previous to the Leonard fight and he avenged it twice by KO. Oh, another brief point for the amazing Hugh: You said Duran, Hearns, Hagler etc never dominated like Pac did against those level of opponents that Pac fought eg. those guys who had all been stopped, dominated and beaten up before, usually only a few couple of fights before Pac fought them? This way of making Pac greater for you guys really makes me giggle. Its also makes me realise you genuinely have absolutely no clue as to the guys you are even talking about. Ken Buchanan is better than every opponent of Pac's except Barrera, Marquez and Morales and he is on the level of those guys as a HOF, lightweight great. Duran dominated him like no one ever did before or after as Buchanan had never been dominated and never was again. He did that to HOFer De Jesus in their third fight who had never been dominated and only been knocked out by Duran (De Jesus still in his prime though as a champion), he did it to HOFer Palomino who had never been dominated, etc etc etc. He actually did it to fighters who had not been hurt, knocked out, dropped and had only ever lost close decision losses etc.
Hearns? I can't believe you said this one! That's just weird. Hearns stopped Duran in two rounds. Full stop. Your argument is over. You lose. Go home. Disappear. Shut up. You want to talk about stopping/dominating iron chinned, supposedly unstoppable fighters? Well, guess what? Pac hadn't done that apart from a past it, drained Morales who had been shockingly dominated in his most recent fight much worse than Pac did. Hearns did it to numerous HOF and ATG level fighters. He knocked out Duran in two rounds.
Anyway, off track, back to Puga's absurd argument. So, Duran hadn't lost in about ten. Neither had Hagler. In fact, he had avenged each of his two losses by very early KO twice. After his second loss early in his career (which most know to be a terrible decision), he didn't lose again for ten years all the while beating HOFers, unifying the titles and truly dominating his weight class (something Pac has also never done). Now, we can talk about the decision against Leonard all we want. Leonard won in a close fight. He did it after coming off one fight in six years! Yes, Hagler had slipped and had come off a string of tough fights against great level opponents, but Leonard had fought one fight in six years. He moved up in weight to fight the most dominant fighter in the world who hadn't lost a single fight in a decade and he did it after a six year lay off with one brief fight.....He won. It's why that fight is far and away considered one of the truly staggering, legendary feats in all of boxing history up there with Foreman's win over Moorer, Duran's over Barkley, Walcott's etc etc.
That win alone, and only those who were actually around at the time remember this (which excludes every Pac fan and anyone arguing that he actually has a better resume) as it was as hyped and as big a fight as Pac/Mayweather, was more staggering and created more worldwide headlines and was more mainstream than anything that has happened since and was a bigger win than all three of Pac's biggest wins put together. I just don't think you guys understand the size of that win. Hagler had 'unbeatable' written all over him. He had so thoroughly dominated that everyone literally thought he was unbeatable. He had done it by even deliberately fighting the other guys fight and beating them up just to show he could.
Take Pac's reputation now as being on an unbeatable win streak (Hugh: he was dominating previously unbeaten fighters, guys who had never been dominated more than Pac did), now times it by five and double the length of time it had been going on and then add in that he had never been knocked out, had never been dropped (everyone who knows or saw the fight knows that it was a push, pure and simple) or even really hurt like Pac had and he had avenged his early career losses brutally by KO each and every time.
People thought Leonard was literally going to be killed or badly damaged. The fight Pac had against Oscar? Many were saying Oscar was going to KO Pac right? Well, Oscar had been fighting part time for years, had lost 50% of his last six or so fights across the last five ro so years and had been knocked out. Imagine the same kind of thing but imagine it as Oscar having beaten every one of the guys he had lost to and was still destroying everyone and you'll maybe understand a bit of the reputation and hype that was leading into that fight.
The fact is Hugh, Puga, Pacdbest is that you just don't get what those fights meant. Leonard's biggest fights were the size of what Mayweather vs Pac would be if it happened and they all had the same significance and intensity, but each fighter was greater than either guy here.
Leonard has the greater resume. He has one of the truly great resumes and of all fighters to ever fight, has arguably the single greatest wins ever with the most significance. Pac really does pale in comparison. That really is a fact. He doesn't have a single win that compares in size, significance and importance unless he fights Mayweather. Even then, Leonard has three wins of that size with two being even greater than that could be.
Comment