Should Manny Still Be Placed Above Floyd On The ATG List?

[SweetPbfAli]

This fight is what we in boxing call a risky fight with little reward. Only someone real bias towards Floyd would say it was a nothing fight for PAC as if getting in the ring with someone with all the physical advantages is easy?
Whilst the Floyd v berto fight is what we in boxing call a little risk and little crredit fight. But Floyd will add it to his stats of most former champs beat won't he?

Risk? Anyone who knew **** about boxing and styles knew that a slow, face first plodder was not there to beat Manny, but instead highlight his strengths of speed and combination punching. Top Rank and Freddie are great matchmakers. They knew exactly what they were doing and milked it for as long as they could.

[SweetPbfAli]

He most certainly wasn't. Additionally, you can't compare a boxer's decline to another's based on the number of fights or age. They decline at different rates.

Morales was done by 30. Too many wars so he was older in ring age than his biological age. His first fight with Manny was his last great performance.

[madsweeney]

He most certainly wasn't. Additionally, you can't compare a boxer's decline to another's based on the number of fights or age. They decline at different rates.

Whoops, you're right, hes 38 now, was 36 at the time of the fight. But still 36 > 30. 65 fights > 50 3 KO's > 0.

Morales was done by 30. Too many wars so he was older in ring age than his biological age. His first fight with Manny was his last great performance.

Morales was declining at 30, not done. FFS, he took Maidana to hell 5 years later. Still doesn't make sense that an older Manny, who had been in more wars than Morales, and KO'ed, is fresher than that 30 yr old Morales.

[torosboxing75]

These ****** posters talking about who fought who first. WGAF!!! That point is irrelevant. You can say Floyd always waited for somebody else to beat his top opponents too or asked for a catch weight or some other ****** demand. The double standards with you guys is unbelievable. All the common opponents Manny beat them down (minus JMM) and Floyd schooled them and won by points. Manny's were more exciting because of his style. If the common opponents had took a beating from Floyd then you can make the argument that Floyd fought them first and they aren't the same. If Manny used the same game plan to defeat the common opponents then you can say Manny waited for Floyd to show the blue print. NO! NO! and NO! It didn't go down like that did it. That's why some of you guys word doesn't carry any weight because as soon as we're talking about somebody you have a man crush on you become bias and the double standards start spewing.

[madsweeney]

manny pacquiao is a MARGINAL fighter whom was HYPED to the MAX
and when you REALLY break down his resume its C- resume.
mayweather is in my top 20 ALL-TIME maybe top 15 MAYBE top 10 JUST SKATING IN but pacquiao isnt even in my top 40, MAYBE 50 but not top 40

Wait, Floyd is top 10 ATG...yet his career defining win and sole win against an ATG is a C- resume having Pacquiao? Damn the rest of Floyd's competition must have been F resumes.

[madsweeney]

These ****** posters talking about who fought who first. WGAF!!! That point is irrelevant. You can say Floyd always waited for somebody else to beat his top opponents too or asked for a catch weight or some other ****** demand. The double standards with you guys is unbelievable. All the common opponents Manny beat them down (minus JMM) and Floyd schooled them and won by points. Manny's were more exciting because of his style. If the common opponents had took a beating from Floyd then you can make the argument that Floyd fought them first and they aren't the same. If Manny used the same game plan to defeat the common opponents then you can say Manny waited for Floyd to show the blue print. NO! NO! and NO! It didn't go down like that did it. That's why some of you guys word doesn't carry any weight because as soon as we're talking about somebody you have a man crush on you become bias and the double standards start spewing.

I'm just pointing out the double standards. My argument since the beginning of this thread that both men have comparable resumes when you look at things objectively. Some may favor one or the other but to dismiss either's resume is what you said, biased man crushes.

[B Phontain]

I've been explaining multiple times in this thread. You don't agree, provide evidence to support your opinion.

But since you guys dont seem to like to read, here's some justification for my opinion....
Physical age - Morales was 30 when he fought Pac. Pac was 38 when Floyd fought him
Fighter age - Morales 51 fights over 13 years, Pac 65 fights over 20 years. Both brawlers but Pac relied more on athleticism/Morales more traditional skills.
recent loss type - Morales lost 3 times before Pac, all by decision. Pac 5 losses including 3 knockouts

Now please, tell me, how the hell you think a 30 yr old Morales being KO'ed for the first time in his career, was a worse win than a 38 year old Pac with a fairly recent KO.

manny was 36, floyd was 38

[IMDAZED]

Pretty widely known that Pac Morales II was guaranteed before their tune-ups. http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/ar...p/t-43475.html Oh looky, everyone was expecting an easy win Morales too.

Even if "guaranteed" why would he have to break his contract? They both were under the Top Rank stable. So no, he wouldn't have to do that.

Whether you like it or not, Morales lost in one-sided fashion to Raheem. And was rewarded with a Pacquiao rematch at a weight he didnt want. To consider him still at ATG form is to admit your bias.

[NUCLEAR]

Morales was done by 30. Too many wars so he was older in ring age than his biological age. His first fight with Manny was his last great performance.

Bullcrap. his last great performance was against the 3rd fight with barrera you only say that because pac won impressively in the 2nd fight so you can discredit his win.

[IMDAZED]

Bullcrap. his last great performance was against the 3rd fight with barrera you only say that because pac won impressively in the 2nd fight so you can discredit his win.

No he's right. Morales was having serious trouble making weight which is why he moved up for the Raheem fight. He lost all negotiating power when he lost. Really, he should have never been given the Pacquiao rematch because he got his ass kicked by Raheem. But he did, also lost out on his wish to have it at 135 and then lost. Even worse...they fought him again smh. Kudos to Arum.