Pacquiao has a better resume than Duran!

[BrometheusBob.]

I'd go with Duran personally

[Thraxox]

I'd go with Duran personally

I go Pacquiao on resume, but I still have Duran above Pacquiao on pound for pound rankings. Can't really have my two fav fighters have an edge on each other.

[Tony Trick-Pony]

It's a stretch to say Barrera was already fading, he was 28 years old coming of to the biggset wins on Hamed, Tapia, Ayala and Morales. Barrera only had 3 wars, that is Morales 1 and two and Agapito Sanchez, and got D'Qd by Jones. Pacquiao at 28 if we go by your logic is already fading because at that time he already fought how many wars in Marquez 1 2, Morales 1,2, Oscar Larios, Agapito Sanchez, Then Pacquiao was already way passed his prime the moment he entered Welterweight. Pacquiao at 28 had more Wars than Morales and Barrera.

Then also, after the Pacquiao bout, Barrera is then was going on a winnong streak of six, remaining to be a top 6 pound for pound fighter before losing to Juan Manuel Marquez. Barrera is far from fading, and he still won a War against Erik Morales after Pacquiao beat him up.

That's not my logic. Every fighter is different. Barrera was not the same one who beat Morales and Naz. He did have a great comeback year in 04 beating Ayala who was really too small to compete and Morales whose own arrogance made the fight much easier for Barrera than it should have been but he never did anything after that. He struggled with Rocky Juarez twice who lost to everybody he stepped up against. A younger Barrera wouldn't have had to. I didn't say he was done by any means, but the young Pac didn't blaze through the best Barrera is all I'm saying. And he might have been 28, but he turned pro when he was 15 which usually leads to a younger prime.

[DeadLikeMe]

That's not my logic. Every fighter is different. Barrera was not the same one who beat Morales and Naz. He did have a great comeback year in 04 beating Ayala who was really too small to compete and Morales whose own arrogance made the fight much easier for Barrera than it should have been but he never did anything after that. He struggled with Rocky Juarez twice who lost to everybody he stepped up against. A younger Barrera wouldn't have had to. I didn't say he was done by any means, but the young Pac didn't blaze through the best Barrera is all I'm saying. And he might have been 28, but he turned pro when he was 15 which usually leads to a younger prime.

Barrera was on a tear when Pac beat him the first time. It was Morales that was already faded when he gave Manny a boxing lesson.

[Thraxox]

That's not my logic. Every fighter is different. Barrera was not the same one who beat Morales and Naz. He did have a great comeback year in 04 beating Ayala who was really too small to compete and Morales whose own arrogance made the fight much easier for Barrera than it should have been but he never did anything after that. He struggled with Rocky Juarez twice who lost to everybody he stepped up against. A younger Barrera wouldn't have had to. I didn't say he was done by any means, but the young Pac didn't blaze through the best Barrera is all I'm saying. And he might have been 28, but he turned pro when he was 15 which usually leads to a younger prime.

"Every fighter is different." Then giving credit is different and has to fully analyzed to circumstance. Erik Morales fought a green Pacquiao, drained him down because NSAC 'lost' Pacquiao's blood test and took 2 ounces of blood from Pacquiao a night before the fight, forced him to wear pillows, head butt him and fought a oned eye Pacquiao from round 5 till the end, and still struggled with him. Then I won't give Erik Morales credit for a fight that was so littered with controversies that the FBI had to be involved in.

Pacquiao was 16 years old when he had his professional debu also. If we go on even circumstance.

And also you forgot Pacquiao fought Barrera at TEXAS. In his home town where the moment you agree to fight a mexican superstar in his hometown you already lost.

There is a reason I rarely say passed his prime to not give credit to a fighter because I don't want to delve in hypocrisy. Whenever you say "Faded" or "passed his prime" There has to be legit reason, and a 28 year old Barrera being called Faded and a 28 year old Pacquiao being called "prime" is hypocritical because it reduces a fighter's accomplishment while ignoring the other's circumstance, Pacquiao also at that point had more wear and tear than Barreram if go to the number of wars and how their career had gone to.

Also, Morales was unmotivated in the Raheem fight, didn't train, and Raheem worked his ass of for that fight, Morales himself told that he thought this fight as a tune up bout and would fight Pacquiao again to silence the critics about him forcing Pac to wear pillows. Then they fought in even terms, Pacquiao allowed to wear his punchers gloves and not drain him a night before the fight by taking 2 ounces of blood, and did not head butt him.

Like you said. "Every Fighter is Different." Then every accreditation for accomplishments is different.

[Tony Trick-Pony]

"Every fighter is different." Then giving credit is different and has to fully analyzed to circumstance. Erik Morales fought a green Pacquiao, drained him down because NSAC 'lost' Pacquiao's blood test and took 2 ounces of blood from Pacquiao a night before the fight, forced him to wear pillows, head butt him and fought a oned eye Pacquiao from round 5 till the end, and still struggled with him. Then I won't give Erik Morales credit for a fight that was so littered with controversies that the FBI had to be involved in.

Pacquiao was 16 years old when he had his professional debu also. If we go on even circumstance.

And also you forgot Pacquiao fought Barrera at TEXAS. In his home town where the moment you agree to fight a mexican superstar in his hometown you already lost.

There is a reason I rarely say passed his prime to not give credit to a fighter because I don't want to delve in hypocrisy. Whenever you say "Faded" or "passed his prime" There has to be legit reason, and a 28 year old Barrera being called Faded and a 28 year old Pacquiao being called "prime" is hypocritical because it reduces a fighter's accomplishment while ignoring the other's circumstance, Pacquiao also at that point had more wear and tear than Barreram if go to the number of wars and how their career had gone to.

Also, Morales was unmotivated in the Raheem fight, didn't train, and Raheem worked his ass of for that fight, Morales himself told that he thought this fight as a tune up bout and would fight Pacquiao again to silence the critics about him forcing Pac to wear pillows. Then they fought in even terms, Pacquiao allowed to wear his punchers gloves and not drain him a night before the fight by taking 2 ounces of blood, and did not head butt him.

Like you said. "Every Fighter is Different." Then every accreditation for accomplishments is different.

Well, I didn't call a 28-year-old Pacquiao prime. It looked to me like Barrera was faded when he fought Pac. You don't see it that way. Fine. But I can say faded or prime about anybody I want. Freedom of speech man. And you just diminished Morales' win over Pac with a vengeance. Many consider that his best win. You seem to want to water down accomplishments yourself, which of course, we're all probably guilty of. And it's not all so simple either really. There are a ton of factors in boxing and measuring one against the other. It's almost as bad as mythical matchups.

[Thraxox]

Well, I didn't call a 28-year-old Pacquiao prime. It looked to me like Barrera was faded when he fought Pac. You don't see it that way. Fine. But I can say faded or prime about anybody I want. Freedom of speech man. And you just diminished Morales' win over Pac with a vengeance. Many consider that his best win. You seem to want to water down accomplishments yourself, which of course, we're all probably guilty of. And it's not all so simple either really. There are a ton of factors in boxing and measuring one against the other. It's almost as bad as mythical matchups.

No, I'm just analyzing the circumstances of that fight. You said Barrera is faded because of the circumstances, then I disagree because barrera was 28 years old coming off in his best wins, then I say Morales' win over Pac is trash because of the controversy behind the fight is so great that authorities against crime had to be involved in. How can you give 100% credit to a fight that was so littered with controversy? When the fight was announced Pacquiao opened as a 3-1 favorite to beat Morales, then the moment details of what would be in the ring the odds slowly becomes to get closer and closer that some of the webs had morales favorite over pacquiao citing reasons because of the blood and gloves, it ended with 9-8 picking Pacquiao to win. I picked Morales to win that fight when It was reported Pacquiao had been taken 2 ounces of blood a night before that fight and when Pacquiao has to wear pillows, then Morales wasn't satisfied with all the advantages and had to head butt pacquiao that it caused Pacquiao to be one eyed fighter with more blood coming out from him, and he didn't even stop him, and I gave 100% credit to Morales for beating Pac. But if we discredit PAc's win over Barrera even if the situation favors barrera to be in his prime, then I won't give any credit at all for Morales beating Pacquiao for the controversial fight.

[Tony Trick-Pony]

No, I'm just analyzing the circumstances of that fight. You said Barrera is faded because of the circumstances, then I disagree because barrera was 28 years old coming off in his best wins, then I say Morales' win over Pac is trash because of the controversy behind the fight is so great that authorities against crime had to be involved in. How can you give 100% credit to a fight that was so littered with controversy? When the fight was announced Pacquiao opened as a 3-1 favorite to beat Morales, then the moment details of what would be in the ring the odds slowly becomes to get closer and closer that some of the webs had morales favorite over pacquiao citing reasons because of the blood and gloves, it ended with 9-8 picking Pacquiao to win. I picked Morales to win that fight when It was reported Pacquiao had been taken 2 ounces of blood a night before that fight and when Pacquiao has to wear pillows, then Morales wasn't satisfied with all the advantages and had to head butt pacquiao that it caused Pacquiao to be one eyed fighter with more blood coming out from him, and he didn't even stop him, and I gave 100% credit to Morales for beating Pac. But if we discredit PAc's win over Barrera even if the situation favors barrera to be in his prime, then I won't give any credit at all for Morales beating Pacquiao for the controversial fight.

Well, with all you know about the Morales fight, obviously you feel Morales doesn't deserve any credit for the win. So by all means, don't him any credit. By your own logic, you really shouldn't. I don't give Ward credit for the Kessler win because I thought he cheated like hell. I didn't know all of those things about the first Morales-Pacquiao fight. It is pretty disappointing I admit. And I am really not discrediting his win over Barrera. To beat a great fighter is great, even if he's not in his prime. Any great fighter still brings things to the ring that lesser fighters don't at any point in their careers. I just don't think Pac ran through a prime Barrera. It was still a great win.

[Thraxox]

Well, with all you know about the Morales fight, obviously you feel Morales doesn't deserve any credit for the win. So by all means, don't him any credit. By your own logic, you really shouldn't. I don't give Ward credit for the Kessler win because I thought he cheated like hell. I didn't know all of those things about the first Morales-Pacquiao fight. It is pretty disappointing I admit. And I am really not discrediting his win over Barrera. To beat a great fighter is great, even if he's not in his prime. Any great fighter still brings things to the ring that lesser fighters don't at any point in their careers. I just don't think Pac ran through a prime Barrera. It was still a great win.

Thanks for being a good sport Anthony. And by all means, point of view's are worthless.

[Tony Trick-Pony]

Thanks for being a good sport Anthony. And by all means, point of view's are worthless.

Oh I can't agree with you there, Thraxox. I'm a writer and POVs in writing mean everything.

But when it comes to being a boxing fan, you are correct. Ha.