Is Manny Pacquiao the most overrated fighter of the past 25 years?

[therealpugilist]

ok & that's just one way to measure how great a fighter is. Not the end all be all. The division titles are impressive though considering where he started. Sure pac didnt beat the best at 135 but he still scaled the division. Went up to 140 now to 147. He fought hatton who was lineal & now he's figthing bradley.

Never said it was the end all be all, what were can do to measure their competition and resume lets see who has the most wins over top ten ranked fighters at the time they fought them ....regardless of titles, belts, and p4p rankings

just a comparison to his closest contemporary

Pacquaio: Juan Manuel Marquez, Sasakul, Clottey, Mosely, Cotto, Ledwaba, Barrera, Morales, Hatton, David Diaz, Ledwaba, Jorge Solis...(Maragrito wasnt ranked at 154, Oscar Larios not rated at 130 and ODLH wasnt ranked at welterweight)........grand total 12

Mayweather: Genero Hernandez, Goyo Vargas, Corrales, Shane Mosley, Oscar De La Hoya, Ricky Hatton, Angel Manfredy, Jose Luis Castillo, Gatti, Ortiz, Cotto, Carlos Baldomir, Zab Judah, Demarcus Corley, Victoriano Sosa, Jesus Chavez, and Carlos Hernandez....(Ndo not ranked at lightweight, sharmba mithell not ranked at welter) grand total 17

[The Tase]

why are you so hung up on publications? when you know its a popularity contest who promote and annoint...they have their own agenda's as well

for example everyone was on Julio Cesar Chavez nuts because he was humble and didnt give Whitaker much credit or accolades because of his style or bravado same with Macho Camacho

He will never acknowledge that sensibly. He may agree to it in order to move on, but he won't apply it in his reasoning because then he would have no argument.

When people rely strictly on what opinions other people have said or put in print to make an argument, it becomes clear that they have accepted those spoken or written words as facts .. when in reality they too are opinions.

He just feels as though they are more legitimate because they have been quoted or put into print. That's flawed logic .. like most of the rest of his arguments.

Its really that simple.

lmfaaaooo because that's how this sport's greats are awarded & recognized!!!!


WTF man?

Who else are we going to listen to? You?


How do you think the mvp is chosen in the nba? by polls on sports nation?

No, by nba publication writers.



god please help me.

.......................

[The Big Dunn]

thanks for your opinion. Too bad we cant measure it. What we can measure is resume, boxing awards & decoration by boxing publications that have been around longer than youve been alive & whose opinion & analysis carry weight.

That's how we judge greatness. Not hypothetical fantasy match up wins & perceived talent & greatness according to you.


So tell me, who has a better resume than Pacquiao over the last 25 years?

i DON'T take another man's opinion over mine. Again, I have not come here and crapped on the awrds manny received. I am simply "looking into the numbers".

Manny has a quality resume no question. But I am not gonna give him credit for 3 fights versus the same person when some of those rematches were fought not for legacy but as a profitable way to avoid fighting fighters (NOT DUCKING) that had different skill sets that manny has trouble with, ie Floyd, zahir raheem, joan guzman, dimitry salita, etc.

So I'm not going to change my answer or opinion. Manny is a 1st ballot HOF'er. This is something we can agree on.

[Brother Jay]

Resume and accomplishment is the most important thing to rank greatness.

If all one were to consider were the names on the resumes then the one considering will always have misleading information.

Resume = win/loss/draw and names.

If one does not factor in the rank of the named opponents at the time of the fights then one cannot accurately gauge the value of the fight for legacy purposes.

If it were any different, then one could literally hide in a country not known for great boxers, amass 40 wins/0 losses and a then have a few bouts against passed prime fighters and former champions that retain big name recognition to create the illusion of being great.

I mean, that's what Calzaghe did isn't it? Michelczewski did the same exact thing without ever facing a big name. And now Pacquiao is doing much of the same thing .. although Pacquiao has faced Barrera, Morales and JMM.

That's where the differences stop though. And JMM is the reason that Pacquiao doesn't often fight top three ranked fighters. Its too much for him when he can get guys coming off losses to drain themselves.

If all one did was look at resumes and didn't see any three of the Pacquiao/JMM matches, they would just assume that Pacquiao won .. when real fans know that he really never did.

[therealpugilist]

He will never acknowledge that sensibly. He may agree to it in order to move on, but he won't apply it in his reasoning because then he would have no argument.

When people rely strictly on what opinions other people have said or put in print to make an argument, it becomes clear that they have accepted those spoken or written words as facts .. when in reality they too are opinions.

He just feels as though they are more legitimate because they have been quoted or put into print. That's flawed logic .. like most of the rest of his arguments.

Its really that simple.

their opinions dont mean any more or less than ours, their's just happen to fit his agenda.....he basically doesnt have an opinion because it isnt based off his own mind

[The Tase]

i DON'T take another man's opinion over mine. Again, I have not come here and crapped on the awrds manny received. I am simply "looking into the numbers".

Manny has a quality resume no question. But I am not gonna give him credit for 3 fights versus the same person when some of those rematches were fought not for legacy but as a profitable way to avoid fighting fighters (NOT DUCKING) that had different skill sets that manny has trouble with, ie Floyd, zahir raheem, joan guzman, dimitry salita, etc.

So I'm not going to change my answer or opinion. Manny is a 1st ballot HOF'er. This is something we can agree on.

so you consider michael jordan's mvps illegitimate?

because those are awarded by his sport's publication & according to some poster's here we dont listen to our sport's publications.

[Roman Moreno]

I think that dissecting a fighters skills and how he showcases those skills in tough situations is equal to if not better than a "resume"

Again "who" is the fighter showcasing those skills in tough situations? Against Joe Shmoe?

It would have to be against a good opponent, a legit opponent, a tough opponent, a credible opponent to be able to dissect those skills.

However, if that same fighter comes out the winner against that good opponent, legit opponent, a tough opponent, a credible opponent it would fall under "resume"

If he comes out the winner against Joe Shmoe than I still don't how good he really is.

Resume is truly the best indicator on perceived skills.

[The Tase]

their opinions dont mean any more or less than ours, their's just happen to fit his agenda.....he basically doesnt have an opinion because it isnt based off his own mind

Soooo who do you think awards & recognizes other athletes of other sports?

its those sports writers & publication. Just like boxing.


why is this even up for debate?

[therealpugilist]

If all one were to consider were the names on the resumes then the one considering will always have misleading information.

Resume = win/loss/draw and names.

If one does not factor in the rank of the named opponents at the time of the fights then one cannot accurately gauge the value of the fight for legacy purposes.

If it were any different, then one could literally hide in a country not known for great boxers, amass 40 wins/0 losses and a then have a few bouts against passed prime fighters and former champions that retain big name recognition to create the illusion of being great.

I mean, that's what Calzaghe did isn't it? Michelczewski did the same exact thing without ever facing a big name. And now Pacquiao is doing much of the same thing .. although Pacquiao has faced Barrera, Morales and JMM.

That's where the differences stop though. And JMM is the reason that Pacquiao doesn't often fight top three ranked fighters. Its too much for him when he can get guys coming off losses to drain themselves.

If all one did was look at resumes and didn't see any three of the Pacquiao/JMM matches, they would just assume that Pacquiao won .. when real fans know that he really never did.

yep you gotta look past a piece of paper,

have to also consider when a fighter beat their opponents, and watch the fights for yourself....their have been too many robberies just to believe everything on print

[Roman Moreno]

BTW, Chavez "draw" vs Whitaker doesn't go under Chavez resume.

However, Whitaker "draw" vs Chavez goes under Whitaker resume.

I think we can all agree on that right?

Duran getting KTFO by Hearns doesn't go under his resume either.

So losses doesn't count as resume.

Of course not always there are some exceptions to that rule. But, losses don't count as resumes.

And, I just stopped reading that post there. So couldn't answer the rest of the post. But, I'm pretty sure it was a ******ed reply.