Who is the greater fighter before 25, Pac or Floyd? after 25?

[The Big Dunn]

How would a win be negated by a loss? Fighters lose. All the time. Pacquiao coming back to beat Ledwaba shows he has improved. You're not taking everything into consideration by holding those knockout losses against Pacquiao so badly, because he was a malnourished teenager for both.

It's also very easy for a fighter who has lost to perform better than a fighter who didn't. It's called competition. I'm not saying Pacquiao fought better competition than Floyd, I'm just saying in general, holding the undefeated record at that point in Floyd's career is pointless.

You can't give credit for wins a s a teenager then say the losses were because he was a malnourished teenager. You don't know that to be true. Manny had great wins before he was 25 and bad losses. Floyd had great wins, not as many, but no losses. That has to count for something.

You note his improvement because he came back from losses but then say holding the undefeated record at that point in Floyd's career is pointless. Its like you are giving manny credit for winning after losing but floyd no credit for continuing to win. Thats very unequal.

[bojangles1987]

You can't give credit for wins a s a teenager then say the losses were because he was a malnourished teenager. You don't know that to be true. Manny had great wins before he was 25 and bad losses. Floyd had great wins, not as many, but no losses. That has to count for something.

You note his improvement because he came back from losses but then say holding the undefeated record at that point in Floyd's career is pointless. Its like you are giving manny credit for winning after losing but floyd no credit for continuing to win. Thats very unequal.

Pacquiao fought professionally for 9 years before he was 25. Most fighters tend to lose when they've been fighting that long. I'm not debating that Pacquiao was a better fighter than Floyd before 25, he wasn't. But that doesn't change that he may have accomplished more. At the very least it's close and arguments can be made for both. You can't say Floyd and it's not close just because Pacquiao lost two times.

[Elotero]

I really dont want to hear any more "OMG Pac beat Sasakul!!!" Who the **** was Sasakul back in the day? I've heard of Finito Lopez, Rosendo Alvarez, but who is this Sasakul character that was supposedly such a badass that only Pac stans remember who he is? A quick look at his record returns 0 name recognition other than losing to Mijares recently, Pac over ten years ago and a win over Reynante Jamili who was a known stepping stone back in the day. Really? This was Pacs best win back then and claim to HOF status? A win over this guy? But somehow beating JL Castillo twice is only slightly better? Crack smokers.

[straightleft]

I really dont want to hear any more "OMG Pac beat Sasakul!!!" Who the **** was Sasakul back in the day? I've heard of Finito Lopez, Rosendo Alvarez, but who is this Sasakul character that was supposedly such a badass that only Pac stans remember who he is? A quick look at his record returns 0 name recognition other than losing to Mijares recently, Pac over ten years ago and a win over Reynante Jamili who was a known stepping stone back in the day. Really? This was Pacs best win back then and claim to HOF status? A win over this guy? But somehow beating JL Castillo twice is only slightly better? Crack smokers.

Certanly you know nothing about Sasakul. You should read post #5 click the link Article by Cliff to enlighten you.

[IronDanHamza]

sasakul was for the lineal championship? I didn't know that.

if you include the 25th year it could be fairly close.

Then floyd had 1 lineal championship, 2 divisional titles, olympic bronze that should have been a silver/gold, and wins over Genaro Hernandez, Diego Corrales and 2x JLC.
please correct me if im wrong, I'm really tired.

Floyd was Lineal Champion at both 130 and 135.

And yeah Sasakul was Lineal Champion at 112. Very good win for Pac.

[straightleft]

everything the fighters did in the ring has to be weighed, not just the wins. How is it possible that a fighter who lost twice performed better than a fighter who didn't? We can't discount Pac's losses to low caliber fighters. Shouldn't the surprise win against Ledwaba is negated by the loss to lower caliber fighters?

Taking EVERYTHING into consideration, it has to be Floyd. Of course I am a floyd fan but I think I am being reasonable.

Floyd only notable win below 25 was Hernandez. At this point of his career he was consider a young prospect but far from great even though he was undeafeted. To make my point, there are many young below 25 fighters now who are undefeated in every divisions but don't mean anything or being undefeated they can beat now the best fighters in their division. Nowadays, there are several undeafeted fighters at 140 and 147. Now do you think they can beat Pac because they are undefeated and Pac has 3 losses? I don't think so. Now the point is...below 25, Pac 2 losses, champ at the age of 19, 3 divisions champ and 2 lineal champ > Floyd undefeated, 1 division champ.

[Larry the boss]

Great fighters proved themselves how to come back strong from his losses. Undefeated is overrated kinda his competition are not strong enough or he avoided carefully those who might beat him.

sad he NEVER avenged EITHER ko loss

[straightleft]

sad he NEVER avenged EITHER ko loss

Valid circumstances didn't allow that to happen. After the Torecampo fight, Pac needs to win his next fight or few fights to validate his rematch against Torecampo. Sadly, Torecampo's next 6 fights, he lose 4 times and 1 by disqualification then disappeared. In Singsurat fight, clearly he can't make weight at 112 anymore. The fact that he jumped 2 divisions right after (leaving 115 & 118 behind) and straight away he went to 122 showed there is no way he can avenge those loss.

[boxer.exposed]

Pacquiao below 25
Pacquiao after 25