As of right now who ranks higher,Floyd or Manny

[The Big Dunn]

Thanks man,, Im glad someone understands that styles make fights,,,

thats why triangle theories never pan out,,, like taylor beats hopkins, pavlik stops taylor, hopkins beats the hell out of pavlik,,

or jones beats hopkins, tarver beats jones, hopkins beats tarver,,,

Its all about the styles

That is why floyd looked so dominant vs jmm, while manny has trouble with jmm,,,,
Floyd had trouble with JLC, yet if JLC fought manny, manny may light him up like a christmas tree...

Its all about styles

erik knew this before he picked raheem right? raheem wasn't a mandatory or anything. he chose to fight zahir because he figured he could beat him. maybe he just got old overnight.

[J The UnBiased]

I give it to Floyd but that is in no way a knock on Manny. I think Pacquiao is an incredible talent and had an incredible career. He was fun to watch and he no doubt left his mark on Boxing. I don't think the book is closed on Manny yet, but I don't think he'll be the threat to 147 that he once was. Floyd on the other hand, I not only have him ranked higher, but he also has a chance to go further in his career. It's a shame they couldn't make this fight.

[J The UnBiased]

I agree J, i think its funny too. How can people think Floyd ranks higher than Manny.

Manny's a great fighter, a special one. But I do have Floyd ranked higher, not by a wide margin though.

[Sugar Adam Ali]

erik knew this before he picked raheem right? raheem wasn't a mandatory or anything. he chose to fight zahir because he figured he could beat him. maybe he just got old overnight.

maybe he did get old overnight, i just think zaheer raheem is a nightmare for anyone, he is like a miguel vasquez or carlos molina,, just a tough puzzle to solve, and i think morales made a huge mistake taking this fight,,,,
It was raheem's super bowl and for morales just a tune-up

I honestly think raheem would have caused morales problems anytime they fought,,, raheem would have caused the morales of 99-01 a ton of problems and probably would have beaten him then too,

I just think morales wasnt as shot as people think he was,,, i think he was dead even with manny in the 2nd fight till about the 8th round when manny's jumping in and out style instead of just coming in, was finally wearing down morales,,,

Like i said before,, it wasnt the greatest of mannys wins, but to comeback and stop a guy who had never been stopped and had just whipped you less than a year earlier should be considered a solid good win,,,,

Raheem didnt put a beating on morales to make me think that raheem ruined him,,, if anything ruined him, it was the 12th round vs manny in the 1st fight,,, either way you gotta give manny some credit for stopping morales,,, He was the first guy to make him quit

[Boxing Goat]

Manny has a better resume by a mile. Not even a close discussion right now in my opinion.

(note* it doesn't mean both are not ATG's and doesn't indicate who would win a H2H matchup)

[DeadLikeMe]

Sugar Adam Ali destroying his credibility in this thread.

[Sugar Adam Ali]

Sugar Adam Ali destroying his credibility in this thread.

Whatever dude,, can you explain how,,,

Im trying to make valid points,, im not being a nuthugger on either side,,,,

please explain what is destroying my credibility, if you disagree, thats cool, we can talk about it just like me and arawka dunn are,,,

dont just be hating and not back it up my man,, im all up for a good debate

[Humean]

No my claim does not. We are not discussing who is better. We are discussing how to rank Manny's wins over Morales. Don't shift the debate.

I am not faulting Manny for raheem's lack of power. I'm saying that manner of victory is a irrelevant when one guy has one punch ko power and the other doesn't. Raheem won the best way he could, Manny won the best way he could. My point is Manny didn't beat Eric until after Raheem beat him. He didn't beat ATG Morales. He beat 4-7 Morales.

The fact remains that Morales went up to LW, lost to an vastly inferior fighter by blowout UD. Morales was the "house" fighter and got the benefit. One judge had it 115-113 Raheem. watch that fight and tell me if you think this scoring is reasonable.

Manny may be better than Morales, but he didn't beat the ATG Morales even though he was the favorite entering the fight. Manny beat the guy David Diaz, Maidana, Danny Garcia and argualy Pablo Cano beat. Not the guy that beat JUnior Jones or MAB, he beat the guy that beat WIllie Limond and Francisco Lorenzo.

A lack of ko power is a weakness and a limitation of a fighter, you actually are blaming Pacquiao for Raheem's lack of power because you are suggesting that their wins over Morales are equivalent when they clearly are not. One involved at best a good boxing performance and a clear decision victory, the other involved taking the fight to Morales - the way Morales wants it - and giving him a beating. How is it possible that you cannot realize the difference?

Some posters sure do gt mad when you post something factual. wonder why.

Its relevant because every great fighter's career has a "demarcation" point where you can see they clearly are not what they used to be. In Erik Morales case this point is the Zahir Raheem fight.

Pre Raheem eric: 48-2 only lost to MAB, beat Manny.
Post Raheem eric: 4-7 (including loss to zahir), lost to Manny twice

SO its clear Manny didn't beat ATG Eric that beat Junior Jones, he beat the one that barely beat Cano,lost to David diaz, Zahir, and beat the likes of willie Limond and fancisco whatever.

SO when evaluating his resume, which one does when determining ATG status, we should take that into consideration.

As for beating them first, its clear that, as with the case with manny and cotto, Floyd beat better versions of those fighters. SO its an attempt to make the objective as subjective as possible by using facts.

This is nonsense. Pretty much every fighter's decline comes bit by bit in stages, it is a gradual deterioration. The Morales of the 2nd Pacquiao fight may have been a version of Morales who was slightly over the hill but his subsequent record does not necessarily verify that and the idea that Pacquiao fought the version that fought Cano, Diaz, etc is laughable. Here is a possible alternative conjecture to counter your conjecture (you are stating facts about Morales' record but you are providing a conjecture/explanation to explain them) Morales started to decline because of the first Pacquiao fight, his decline accelerated a bit further when Pacquiao beat him up in the 2nd fight and then Pacquiao finished the job he had started in the first fight and finished him off in their final fight. In this light Pacquiao comes across a lot better than your explanation. Your supposed 'facts' do not necessarily show what you think.

Here is the reason I wondered whether you thought Morales was better than Pacquiao, Morales got the decision in the first fight, was that prime, all time great Morales? If so does his win not mean he is better than Pacquiao if Pacquiao couldn't beat that version but could only beat the two supposed over the hill versions?

Whatever the correct value to place on at least Pacquiao's first Morales (2nd fight) win, it is surely a lot more than you are placing on it for it really stretching credibility to reason as if it meant so very little.

[CixKix]

I can't believe people are still asking these types of questions

[MARKBNLV]

This is only a debate for haters i have always believed Floyd is on another level then Pacquiao that being said i am a fan of neither i just have two eyes and common sense.