TRUE OR FALSE: pacquiao has too many loses to be considered in ATG

[Pugilistic™]

So false not even words can describe it.

[Grand Champ]

Too many loses? Look at Robinson, Holyfield etc

[Gutz]

Another shiet thread by a ***** to discredit Pac.....

[zte89147]

is the TS serious?

[jrosales13]

People tend to overlook fighters loses when they are old/shot or making a comeback. This is not the case for Pacquiao who has 3 loses and 2 draws. Can you still be considered an ATG with 3 loses and 2 draws? 2 knockout loses I might add

He has too many losses against unknown guys. 2 is too much.

It's okay to have losses, but it better be against greats or at least good fighters. For example his loss against Morales is okay because Morales is a great. But the Singsurat and Torrecampo losses are shameful.

The standards for being great have lowered considerably. Soon the top 10 ATG will be completely changed with new fighters.

[dosepulgada]

Its just bad that that Floydiots has to hype him too much because of the upcoming fight when Pac vs JMM is already being talked about in every boxing forum two months earlier.

[deuce_drop]

first off, what a lame question......

anyone with a grain of common sense and intellect knows that a loss doesn't determine who or what a fighter is? IT'S WHAT THE FIGHTER DOES AFTER THE LOSS!!!!!

if a fighter has losses and doesn't go on to do great things, then he's not great, but if a fighter goes on to win and do great things inside the sport of boxing, then that makes him great, mainly because he was able to overcome his defeat, learned something, and became better because of it..... that is the main ingredient in being a great with losses.

another fact to note, undefeated fighters have had carefully crafted and well selected opponents and fight set ups throughout their whole career.... the guys with lots of amateur hype or olympic status, those guys have financial interests invested in them, they get brought along for MAXIMUM milking and fleecing.

guys like pacquiao and the many, many, many others that have came along his route, LEARNED ON THE JOB!!! the honed their craft as professionals and not in the amateurs, which is a HUGE difference, one major factor being, you're a nobody scrub who has to make his name by fighting whoever, whenever, where ever, and RARELY IF EVER on your terms or any kind of benefit in your favor, as a learn on the job kind of fighter.

learning on the job, you're going to rack up some losses, you're going to have corrupt decisions against you, you're GOING to lose at some point when you go that route, nothing can be done about it, except be exceptional!?! ( highly doubtful ) or be lucky ( unlikely at all ).........

so as being that kind of " from the ground up " type fighter, it's highly remarkable of any fighters to get to pacquiao's level, let alone a world championship level being a " learn on the job " type fighter, who faces the inevitability of losing quite often as he's coming up in the sport.

more people prey on the vulnerability of the guys without investors and financial backing, making it a tougher line of work in making it in boxing..... besides the mount everest of competition that awaits.......

bottom line, it's probably more of a statement and badge of honor to be a fighter who reaches ATG status being a fighter with losses as well as little to no amateur experience, ESPECIALLY BEING A FIGHTER WITH NO BACKERS AND INVESTORS LOOKING OUT FOR YOU (THEIR INVESTMENT)......

losses are more important in the journey of great then having never lost at all...

remember, floyd lost to augie sanchez in the am's, i bet it's something that burns floyd to this day....... and having been close to losing to castillo twice ( unofficially and disputably he did ) i am sure that he has it in his mind to never have that feeling again......

same with calzaghe.......

but then again you look back, these guys had protection inside and outside of the ring, because there were people there who had a stake in their careers who didn't want to take a " L " either............


every fighters story is different and every fighter has his own salvation in the ring, like i said before, it's not the loss that is keeps a fighter from being great, it's what he does after the loss, which will determine if he's an ATG or not.........

as for pacquiao, i personally believe that he needs two solid wins over fighters who are on the level, WHO DON'T HAVE TO CONFORM TO CATCH WEIGHTS, GOING UP OR DOWN!!!!!

two more wins against top legit fighters, at their weight class or at the very least a weight that doesn't cause the fighter to be at a massive disadvantage going in against pacquiao, like we've seen over the last 8 fights or so of manny's..........

pacquiao pulls that off, i will not question whether or not he's a TRUE ATG, at the moment he is, but it can be argued a little too easily right now.......

cs.......

[Walt Liquor]

False and the ts is fookin dumb.

[Hi-Dro]

da ****k is dis ****?

[RubenSonny]

He has too many losses against unknown guys. 2 is too much.

It's okay to have losses, but it better be against greats or at least good fighters. For example his loss against Morales is okay because Morales is a great. But the Singsurat and Torrecampo losses are shameful.

I disagree, I think his loss to Morales is his worse.