Which of These Two Fighters do You Have Ranked Higher All-Time RIGHT NOW?

[betmen]

He said he was past his best BEFORE the fight not after. Go do your homework. Yeah, he was 29 and no that is not the perfect age for a boxer. Seriously how old are you and how long have you been following the sport?
Tyson, Ali, Leonard were all slipping by the time they were 29.
how the hell are you prime after 60 plus fights and several wars? Get the **** outta here lol.

Tyson, Ali, Leonard what an odd choice for examples .

Ali was robbed 4 years of his prime and still do spectacular thing in his 30's, leonard was barely active after the age 27 also have the same case as Ali and Tyson really?? you gave me tyson as example of this situation.

There are several fighters who always reborn even after defeat and wars. Ali, holyfield, leonard, b-hop, Barerra, morales, pacquiao are those type of fighters
Barerra prove that many times, after back to back lose to jones he capture super bantam weight title, after lose to morales he beat hamed and other king of FW in Tapia and ayala, after lose to pacquiao he conquered super FW division.

asking about my age and my experience, my age are visible under my avatar, How dumb are you?? LOL

[Johnwoo8686]

Tyson, Ali, Leonard what an odd choice for examples .

Ali was robbed 4 years of his prime and still do spectacular thing in his 30's, leonard was barely active after the age 27 also have the same case as Ali and Tyson really?? you gave me tyson as example of this situation.

There are several fighters who always reborn even after defeat and wars. Ali, holyfield, leonard, b-hop, Barerra, morales, pacquiao are those type of fighters
Barerra prove that many times, after back to back lose to jones he capture super bantam weight title, after lose to morales he beat hamed and other king of FW in Tapia and ayala, after lose to pacquiao he conquered super FW division.

asking about my age and my experience, my age are visible under my avatar, How dumb are you?? LOL

I hope you aren't actually 27 because your spelling and grammar is that of a 3rd grader. Your logic is even worse. Anyone can put up a fake age on the internet.

You don't think a fighter can be slipping at 29? Barrera said himself before the Pacquiao fight that he felt he was no longer the fighter he once was. So you think Barrera was lying? Give me a break. 60 plus fights and several wars can put a lot of mileage on a fighters body no matter what his age is.

[IronDanHamza]

those statement is so 2009. it's so nostalgic to hear this kind moronic statement again.

Okay let's be serious. barerra was 29 years old the best age for boxer, before pac fight he coming of 8 great wins including win again Naseem hamed, morales, Johnny tapia and kevin kelley. after the pacquiao loss he beat Morales again, paulie ayala, rocky juares and became the ring super fetherweight champion only to loss that title to ATG Juan manuel marquez.



Really?? an excuse after a fighter lose is your argument??!

Go argue with divine hammer, you guys are on the same level. dont bark your **** at me

I think physically he was clearly not at his best in 2003.

But, skill wise he was.

That added to the fact despite slightly past his physical best he was still very good physically, is why you can argue that was a peak Barrera. You can also argue he wasn't, though. Because like I said physically he was definitely not his best IMO.

[betmen]

I hope you aren't actually 27 because your spelling and grammar is that of a 3rd grader. Your logic is even worse. Anyone can put up a fake age on the internet.

You don't think a fighter can be slipping at 29? Barrera said himself before the Pacquiao fight that he felt he was no longer the fighter he once was. So you think Barrera was lying? Give me a break. 60 plus fights and several wars can put a lot of mileage on a fighters body no matter what his age is.

i can't believe this kind of statement still exist at this internet age, you know those asmat tribe in papua got internet last year courtesy of indonesian president, they checking youtube with koteka in their's penises.

i guess i'm not popular in NSB but everybody in the lounge know me as Lovely indonesian men, i live at the edge of the forest the fck i care about perfect english grammar.

[betmen]

I think physically he was clearly not at his best in 2003.

But, skill wise he was.

That added to the fact despite slightly past his physical best he was still very good physically, is why you can argue that was a peak Barrera. You can also argue he wasn't, though. Because like I said physically he was definitely not his best IMO.

Yeah maybe he was not at physical peak but no past prime either usually after certain athlete reach physical peak is not immediately goes down they go stale for 2-3 years before past it unless they got injured, and skill wise he was better, he prove it in Hamed, morales and Juarez fights.

barerra always had hard times againts mid range speedy fighters (jones) and Pac always have a great time with orthodox with left-hook as main offence (oscar, cotto, Barerra). i believe pac will win againts any version of barerra.

[IronDanHamza]

Yeah maybe he was not at physical peak but no past prime either usually after certain athlete reach physical peak is not immediately goes down they go stale for 2-3 years before past it unless they got injured, and skill wise he was better, he prove it in Hamed, morales and Juarez fights.

barerra always had hard times againts mid range speedy fighters (jones) and Pac always have a great time with orthodox with left-hook as main offence (oscar, cotto, Barerra). i believe pac will win againts any version of barerra.

Yeah like I said for me that was the best Barrera I saw. Slightly past his physical prime but skill wise and technically at his best. It is arguable though.

All those 3 have one thing in common, left handed orthodox fighters. I always said Pacquaio does well against them.

[djeffectz]

I voted Pacquiao, he achieved so much in his career, 10 years from now, we will still be talking about Pacquiao, there will never be another him in our era.

Floyd is closing in on Pacquiao though.

[soul_survivor]

To truly answer this question, without personal bias or hate for someone or just fan boy antics, you have to take into account the criteria that are used to judge great fighters and rank them accordingly. Any true ranking, should not be some mystical H2H, P4P list. This isn't about what may have happened if everyone was the same weight and they were all able to fight each other. That's not factual and thus it can not be the most accurate method.

The criteria that I have always found most useful and the best in a purely objective sense is the one ESPN used some years ago to make their top 50 list:

- In ring performance
- Achievements
- Dominance
- Mainstream appeal

In ring performance may have a certain level of subjectivity but there honestly isn't a soul alive who would say Tyson destroying opponents within minutes of them entering the ring was some how inferior to laboured, ugly heavyweight victories of someone like Wlad. Both great fighters but only one with seriously exceptional in ring performances. However, a Wlad Klitschko type would score higher in terms of achievements for his longevity as champion and so on.

Now, keeping all that in mind, Pacquiao clearly had the better in ring performances, the fighters he beat weren't just victories, they were often resounding thumpings. Mayweather, on the other hand, especially when he stepped up to the plate against better opponents, often laboured to 12 round decisions or had to resort to spoiling tactics.

In terms of achievements, Pacquiao has won more world titles than Mayweather in 2 more divisions, starting all the way down at flyweight and fighting at a 150lb at the pinnacle of his powers. Not to mention victories over Barrera, Marquez and Morales which are simply miles ahead of Floyd's victories against Hernandez, Castillo and Corrales in the lower weight divisions.

In terms of dominance, this is quite debatable. Mayweather's undefeated streak is impressive, the fact that he did it in multiple weights adds to that mystique. But in that streak, questions of Margarito and Williams will always be around, as will Tszyu. The timing of Cotto, Mosley and most importantly Pacquiao will not subside for a while yet. Pacquiao suffered some losses though and the fight with Mayweather will always haunt him. This may well be an even stevens kinda deal.

Mainstream appeal, the most superfluous of these criteria but an important one. It's something that can take boxing to the masses and in all honesty, without DLH, neither man would have become the star they are today and without each other, neither man would have been as scrutinised and their runs at welterweight/lmw so watched. Mayweather is now the biggest star in American sports and Pacquiao is an icon who is not only purely loved but a political hero too. His status has transcended simply sports.

The last criteria is probably the most difficult, for years, from casuals, you couldn't hear Mayweather without Pacquiao or vice versa. So another tie? I think so, or maybe a slight edge to Mayweather at this stage.

So overall, if we were scoring this, it's 2-1-1 to Pacquiao, close but keeping in mind the leading criteria are performance and achievements, Pacquiao is a comfortable winner.

But like any list or ranking, other people may have counter arguments which may be just as well thought out. Ultimately, no two lists will be a alike and no two opinions.

[Johnwoo8686]

To truly answer this question, without personal bias or hate for someone or just fan boy antics, you have to take into account the criteria that are used to judge great fighters and rank them accordingly. Any true ranking, should not be some mystical H2H, P4P list. This isn't about what may have happened if everyone was the same weight and they were all able to fight each other. That's not factual and thus it can not be the most accurate method.

The criteria that I have always found most useful and the best in a purely objective sense is the one ESPN used some years ago to make their top 50 list:

- In ring performance
- Achievements
- Dominance
- Mainstream appeal

In ring performance may have a certain level of subjectivity but there honestly isn't a soul alive who would say Tyson destroying opponents within minutes of them entering the ring was some how inferior to laboured, ugly heavyweight victories of someone like Wlad. Both great fighters but only one with seriously exceptional in ring performances. However, a Wlad Klitschko type would score higher in terms of achievements for his longevity as champion and so on.

Now, keeping all that in mind, Pacquiao clearly had the better in ring performances, the fighters he beat weren't just victories, they were often resounding thumpings. Mayweather, on the other hand, especially when he stepped up to the plate against better opponents, often laboured to 12 round decisions or had to resort to spoiling tactics.

In terms of achievements, Pacquiao has won more world titles than Mayweather in 2 more divisions, starting all the way down at flyweight and fighting at a 150lb at the pinnacle of his powers. Not to mention victories over Barrera, Marquez and Morales which are simply miles ahead of Floyd's victories against Hernandez, Castillo and Corrales in the lower weight divisions.

In terms of dominance, this is quite debatable. Mayweather's undefeated streak is impressive, the fact that he did it in multiple weights adds to that mystique. But in that streak, questions of Margarito and Williams will always be around, as will Tszyu. The timing of Cotto, Mosley and most importantly Pacquiao will not subside for a while yet. Pacquiao suffered some losses though and the fight with Mayweather will always haunt him. This may well be an even stevens kinda deal.

Mainstream appeal, the most superfluous of these criteria but an important one. It's something that can take boxing to the masses and in all honesty, without DLH, neither man would have become the star they are today and without each other, neither man would have been as scrutinised and their runs at welterweight/lmw so watched. Mayweather is now the biggest star in American sports and Pacquiao is an icon who is not only purely loved but a political hero too. His status has transcended simply sports.

The last criteria is probably the most difficult, for years, from casuals, you couldn't hear Mayweather without Pacquiao or vice versa. So another tie? I think so, or maybe a slight edge to Mayweather at this stage.

So overall, if we were scoring this, it's 2-1-1 to Pacquiao, close but keeping in mind the leading criteria are performance and achievements, Pacquiao is a comfortable winner.

But like any list or ranking, other people may have counter arguments which may be just as well thought out. Ultimately, no two lists will be a alike and no two opinions.

Using the criteria you posted. Mike Tyson would be seen as greater than Lennox Lewis. He was the youngest heavyweight champion ever, he was one of the most exciting fighters of all time, and he is far more recognizable to the mainstream than Lennox Lewis is.

But can you honestly call Mike Tyson greater than Lennox Lewis? NO, Lewis not only beat Tyson head to head, he beat every man he was in the ring with, including men who beat Tyson.

Saying Pacquiao is greater than Mayweather by using the measure you used would be like saying Mike Tyson is greater than Lennox Lewis. In fact, it's probably worse since the numbers prove that Floyd is the more popular fighter although not the more liked fighter.

Floyd has won more world titles than Manny, defeated more world champions, has outsold Manny in the PPVs, has shown greater consistency in the ring, has beaten Manny himself, and beaten someone who beat Manny and is considered the better fighter by most boxing publications.

[MrRolltide91]

Using the criteria you posted. Mike Tyson would be seen as greater than Lennox Lewis. He was the youngest heavyweight champion ever, he was one of the most exciting fighters of all time, and he is far more recognizable to the mainstream than Lennox Lewis is.

But can you honestly call Mike Tyson greater than Lennox Lewis? NO, Lewis not only beat Tyson head to head, he beat every man he was in the ring with, including men who beat Tyson.

Saying Pacquiao is greater than Mayweather by using the measure you used would be like saying Mike Tyson is greater than Lennox Lewis. In fact, it's probably worse since the numbers prove that Floyd is the more popular fighter although not the more liked fighter.

Floyd has won more world titles than Manny, defeated more world champions, has outsold Manny in the PPVs, has shown greater consistency in the ring, has beaten Manny himself, and beaten someone who beat Manny and is considered the better fighter by most boxing publications.

that's a good example