Comments Thread For: McGirt: Mayweather, Marquez - The True Greats of Our Era

[Brother Jay]

You brought up resumes Mr. Hugh Grant, not me. The resume of a professional fighter represents the totality of his career accomplishments. You cannot cherry-pick from his best moments and simultaneously ignore his failures. Any honest observer must acknowlegde that Pac has been defeated decisively during the course of his career. He was not an un-trained kid when he lost his WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP to Singsurat! Get real. Marquez greatness is not based solely on his fights with Pacquiao. It is based on the totality of his career and the fact that his only decisive and undisputable loss came at the hands of Floyd Mayweather. How convenient it is to say "he was not trained properly and starving" to dismiss his losses. By that logic, I can excuse any loss any fighter ever had in the history of the sport....I can just as easily say that "Barrera had a steel plate put in his head before the first Pacquiao fight and was past his prime for the second, therefore Barrera is better!" or "De La Hoya didn't train properly for Pacquiao, therefore he is better" or "Cotto took a beating from Margaritos plaster hands and then had to starve himself to make a catch-weight against Pacquiao, therefore Cotto is better". I believe that Pacquiao defeated them fair and square, but you can clearly see how the circular reasoning can cut both ways. Resumes matter. Pacquiao has been KNOCKED-OUT decisively more than once. There is no hiding from this fact and it MUST be considered when judging him against the all-time greats. He also flopped around the canvas and literally cried and squealed when he was KTFO. The closest thing I've ever seen to that was De La Hoya against Hopkins and they will both be remembered for those displays.....

Very interesting post. You made an excellent point.

[hugh grant]

Very interesting post. You made an excellent point.

No he didnt. Saying Pac cant be the greatest fighter of this era as he lost to Singuratt, no matter what Pac did since then even if he won the heavyweight title at 5f6 is not a good point and not good logic!!!

That would be like saying Hagler couldnt be the greatest middlweight of his era, or worse still of all time as Hagler had a little blemish on his record in his early days.

Improvement is taken into consideration, it dont matter one bit that pac got knocked out, its what he did since that KO and being knocked out early in career is not barrier to being the best fighter of this era. Especially with underachievers like Floyd as your competiton and peers. Hardly SRR is Floyd?

[straightleft]

Come watch your hero writhing on his knees and show me a clip of Floyd or JMM doing the same. Then we can have a reasoned debate.


The silence from Pac-fans is deafening!!!

Another *****s alt. How many times these *****s should change their alt everyday?

[Brother Jay]

We can agree or disagree.

Like I said, Manny Pacquiao might be overrated with all that "8 divisions champ"crap but he's a truly great fighter.

He's a career featherweight,and he could have been competitive as a featherweight in every era IMO.

Race is sometimes a big factor, not always.

If you think most pac fans are black folks it's your opinion, I personnaly think most of his haters are, it's pretty much obvious.

Remember Hopkins and his "Pac should fight an afro american" tirade??

Like I said, "jeremy lin effect", overrated by some media, underrated by haters...for the same reasons.

All those guys calling Pacquiao a cheat or a bum, a fraud, have an agenda.So had Roy's haters, Hatton deserved bashing as a truly overrated fighter.

No one has denied that the little dude doesn't come to fight.

No one denies that he is exciting to watch as he puts it all out there on the line.

People are just tired of him being touted among the best when he hasn't fought the best. His fights since JMM have all been crap, and he's looking for accolades for doing things under special conditions.

Its real easy to be a fan of watching Manny. He's fun to watch. It it however really hard to honestly buy into the bull**** that Arum has attached to Manny's legacy.

That about wraps that up.

[straightleft]

I disagree with Pac being great at all.

Catchweights, wanting waaay too much credit for beating old fighters, ducking PED tests. Not great.

Did Chavez (a real ATG) have those kind of criticisms?

Did WHitaker have those kind of criticisms?

Nope.

Just Manny.

Your are a hater sir! All Pac catchweight fights happened at welterweight. Let us say you don't include all Pac fights at welterweight on his legacy. Still you can't deny the facts that Pacquiao was already a 3 divisions champ and 2 lineal champ by the age of 24 and he was a WBC champ at the young age of 19. If you don't include his fights at welterweight, still he is the first and only boxer in the history who has 4 lineal titles and 7 division titles in 7 different weight classes.

[The Big Dunn]

No he didnt. Saying Pac cant be the greatest fighter of this era as he lost to Singuratt, no matter what Pac did since then even if he won the heavyweight title at 5f6 is not a good point and not good logic!!!

That would be like saying Hagler couldnt be the greatest middlweight of his era, or worse still of all time as Hagler had a little blemish on his record in his early days.

Improvement is taken into consideration, it dont matter one bit that pac got knocked out, its what he did since that KO and being knocked out early in career is not barrier to being the best fighter of this era. Especially with underachievers like Floyd as your competiton and peers. Hardly SRR is Floyd?

You can't have it both ways. Either take the whole resume or don't.

[bojangles1987]

I disagree with Pac being great at all.

Catchweights, wanting waaay too much credit for beating old fighters, ducking PED tests. Not great.

Did Chavez (a real ATG) have those kind of criticisms?

Did WHitaker have those kind of criticisms?

Nope.

Just Manny.

Chavez fought a catchweight against Whitaker, 145 wouldn't you know. He got his ass whipped, but if he had won would you trying to discredit his entire career as well?

[Brother Jay]

No he didnt. Saying Pac cant be the greatest fighter of this era as he lost to Singuratt, no matter what Pac did since then even if he won the heavyweight title at 5f6 is not a good point and not good logic!!!

That would be like saying Hagler couldnt be the greatest middlweight of his era, or worse still of all time as Hagler had a little blemish on his record in his early days.

Improvement is taken into consideration, it dont matter one bit that pac got knocked out, its what he did since that KO and being knocked out early in career is not barrier to being the best fighter of this era. Especially with underachievers like Floyd as your competiton and peers. Hardly SRR is Floyd?

I didn't get that from what he wrote.

It seemed to me that Tony B. was saying that you cannot excuse losses when its convenient for you to do so.

As he put it "The resume of a professional fighter represents the totality of his career accomplishments."

That point alone completely put you in your place. And he was correct. Peasant fans often selectively include what they will when weighing a fighters career. They don't count losses. They don't factor in vacant titles. They don't see weight stipulations as factor that disqualifies a bout from being legacy worthy.

They make up rules as they go along, but real fans would have none of that.

IT IS WHAT IT IS.

If you pad your record with 40 fights before you ever step up, then your resume is fluff.

If you stipulate that your opponents must cut weight to make a match with you, then like my sig says, its a sign of weakness and an admission that you do not believe in your own ability to win under normal and fair circumstances.

If you seek vacant belts, you are dodging champions who hold champions as opposed to paper titles.

If you get caught and knocked out, you've shown vulnerability.

If you get knocked out twice, you've had a flaw exposed.

If you get outboxed by a guy not known for "pure boxing skills" for 12 rounds, you've been exposed as limited.

If you get outboxed three times by a LW, even when you make him come up to WW at age 38 after your trainer has put in the time so that you are the best you've ever been and a "complete fighter", you've been shown as a product of hype.

Manny Pacquiao is really no different than Paul Williams. He got gift decisions just like PWILL did. He was built up just like PWILL was. He made a big name for himself at WW just like PWILL did.

The difference?

PWILL lost to a man at MW and didn't ask him to cut weight to make a match.

Pacquiao couldn't do that, now could he?

Did you factor that in?

PWILL has wins over Margarito, future HOF Winky Wright and Sergio Martinez WITHOUT catchweights.

Manny Pacquiao waited on six different occasions against six different fighters for someone else to beat them before he would even CONSIDER fighting them. You know ... DLH, Hatton, Cotto, Clottey, Margarito and Mosley.

Did you factor that in, Hugh Grant? Why select what to factor in .. unless you're trying to skew the reality of the situation?

Paul Williams got KO'd because he moved up and faced a man bigger than he's accustomed to fighting.

Manny Pacquiao got KTFO back when he was a little guy in his element. How does THAT factor in?

You've really got to factor in the TOTALITY of it all, my man. It paints a much more accurate picture.

Stop trying to excuse things. It makes your case much, much weaker.

Good job, Tony B. Again, good post.

[maguirre]

LOL. Idiots keep saying Pac is average. Here is Floyd da best can't even find balls to fight the average Pac for more than $100 million.

Naa.

[The Big Dunn]

LOL. Idiots keep saying Pac is average. Here is Floyd da best can't even find balls to fight the average Pac for more than $100 million.

Naa.

I'm sure Buddy McGirt knows more about boxers greatness then manny's diehard fans. Not everyone thinks manny is great.