Who has the better resume Sugar Ray Leonard or Manny Pacquiao?

[megadeth]

3 words.... Singsurat, Torrecampo, Morales.

Not to mention it was a war weary tail end of prime Morales.

[Walt Liquor]

Attn fanboys read this:

Yes, that's true. He took a genuinely brutal beating. One thing you have to give Mayweather Sr credit for is heart. He took a nasty beating for many rounds, was hurt many times and never gave in until the ref stopped it.

I've said it before and I'll say it again though; people are completely overlooking a major point because they are obsessed with one fighter and don't know a damn thing about the rest of the sport. Hugh is a classic example. He'll put down a win over Mayweather and al the other guys Leonard beat except for Duran, Hearns, Hagler, Benitez etc while hyping up Pac's wins over guys like Clottey, Diaz etc.

Let me explain again: There were the two major titles then. WBC and WBA. You weren't considered a champion unless you had one of those. IBF came in reasonably soon after that but it was thought of as similar to what the IBO is now ie. meaningless.

Being a contender rated 5th onward was to be thought of as an excellent fighter and is the same as being one of the paper champions today. Holding a vacant WBO title is no different today than it was to be the 5th, 4th, 3rd ranked fighter back then without the title because there was only two titles instead of six!

The highest Clottey was ever ranked was 4th. He also held a vacant title for one fight. You have mentioned that win for Pac numerous times as one of his best. Leonard fought and beat guys who were ranked number one through five, and more, that you put down as meaningless bum fights. Guess what? At the time in that day, they were considered as good or better than beating Clottey, Diaz, and Margarito. They really were. His win over Pete Ranzany was an excellent win as good as Clottey. Unlike Clottey, Ranzany was the number 1 fighter for a number of years at 147.

As were his wins over Randy Shields, Johnny Gant, Muniz, Tony Chiaverini etc. No doubt you'll come back with some ****** comment, but all that tells me is that you have no idea about anything other than Pac and his oppoents, most of which you also don't know about. I was lucky enough to have been there watching those fights and a fan of boxing then. They were all stiff tests and hard fights against top fighters of that time. He dominated guys who were as good or better than most of the fighters you are talking about. You have to get to the understanding that a contender then had more opposition than most titlists do today. With six titles to go around, thus six different rankings there are guys who fight only for the IBF sanctioned opponents. That means the division as a whole becomes diluted greatly. That didn't happen. The number one contender in that era was better and did more than any Clottey, or Diaz did today.

They were all top fighters in the division and would today have been titlists of some sort. Is that the only way you would understand they were as good as beating some paper titlist like Clottey who in any other era but today's would never have been a titlist at all?

You guys really are laughable with your thinking. There are other fighters in boxing's long history apart from the guys that Pac beat you know?

Your thinking is as simple and foolish as me saying this: Ranzany was the number one ranked fighter for years, had a record of 45-3 and Leonard beat him. That's better than Pac's wins over Clottey, Diaz, etc. Better record and higher ranked. You lose.

That's actually a better argument than your "Pac dominated his opposition and that makes him better, even though he was beating guys who had shown massive flaws, had been beaten as bad and worse and weren't actually that great anyway".

I for one (and I'm not nearly alone in this), find it highly amusing that a fighter can be ranked 4th, 5th or 6th and can still be considered a 'world champions' today. It's utterly absurd and this is the type of argument you guys use. The fact is that while that 5th ranked fighter might have some useless 'title', they are still only ranked 5th and that means there are four better fighters above him. To my mind, beating someone who was the number one fighter is a hell of a lot better than beating the 5th best fighter in the division, but who happened to have been given a vacant paper title. That's something that you guys seem to have a lot of trouble grasping.

Just because there weren't the ridiculous amount of titles in every single division back then doesn't mean there weren't number one ranked fighters. Holding some crappy vacant title today while being ranked 5th is still no different than being ranked 5th in the 70's. They still had to go through the division fighting the same highly ranked fighters. They just weren't given some fake ass title against someone who wasn't even ranked either for it. They had to get through more top fighters then though as there were more fighters in boxing in general.

So while you pretend that Clottey (ranked 5th or 6th or something) beating Judah (ranked 7th, 8th or 9th) for some BS vacant title actually means more than it does, Ranzany (ranked 2nd) beating Shields (ranked 3rd) is better than that by far. In fact, it would today, be the equal of when Cotto and Mosley fought without the name value of Mosley.

Maybe that helps put things in perspective for you guys that don't seem to understand that the significance of fighters doesn't diminish over time and that being ranked among the top of your division means as much forty years ago as it does today. Just because they are fighting today and you actually know them and have seen them fight doesn't automatically make them better fighters. The simple fact is that a lot of the guys you talk about as being great opponents today were never even ranked as high as many of the guys you summarily dismiss from Leonard's resume even though they were ranked higher for longer and beat more top fighters.

no answer yet........

[V.WEBB]

this is the dumbest "fake battle" of all time.


these comparisons are laughable.

I'm going to see if I can get Reed to close it. Maybe 30-40 million can get it done? What do you think?

[pacquia0]

Pacquiao has gone from flyweight champion to welterweight champion. Thats a gap of 4 of the original weight classes. SRL would have to go to heavyweight to be the equal of Pacquiao.

[V.WEBB]

Pacquiao has gone from flyweight champion to welterweight champion. Thats a gap of 4 of the original weight classes. SRL would have to go to heavyweight to be the equal of Pacquiao.

And another one meets the ignore list.

[BoxingTech718]

And another one meets the ignore list.

This is almost as bad as people saying Calzaghe is an ATG.

[hugh grant]

Pac has better resume and has been more succesful. Think about it, the calibre of fighters Pac has fought since the first Barrerra fight and he has fought the biggest names the sport has to offer and lost one fight against Morales, who is genuine badass. No one has done that not SRL or SRR.

SRL had a little run of 3 fighters he did well against, losing one to Duran. It is basically a little good run, similar to Sergio Martinezs but better. That makes him like a FOTY type thing but drawn out over god knows how many years.

There is no comparison that Pac has been far more dominant and achieved more. If you think SRLs opponents are slightly better that is only an opinion but that dont make his resume better. Thats like if you think Mike Tyson is better than Cotto, Buster douglas has a better resume than Pac.

[puga]

And another one meets the ignore list.

lol....this aint your thread mofo....who cares if you put em on ignore, your threads suck anyways.....all you know is ped's....atelast you think you do...lol.

[hugh grant]

Pacdbest, who on Pac's resume is better than Duran?

There are people on Pacs resume that could beat Duran. JMM would likely outpoint duran on any given day as would barrera in his day, not to mention Margarito. If kirkland laing can im sure Margarito could.

That dont take away from Duran. Hes got enough good wins on his resume to be taken seriously.

[jrosales13]

Pacquiao has gone from flyweight champion to welterweight champion. Thats a gap of 4 of the original weight classes. SRL would have to go to heavyweight to be the equal of Pacquiao.

Freddie Steele started Flyweight to and became Middleweight champion of the world. That's a gap of 6 original weight-class.

What is your point?