Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Max Kellerman: Manny Pacquiao has a case for the best pound-for-pound fighter ever

Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by aboutfkntime View Post
    FACT: you took time out of your busy day to tell me that you disagree..... you you did not take time out of your busy day to tell me what you disagree with

    I will make it easier, and label the facts.....



    which fact do you disagree with, and why..... ?

    no way Thurman beats Spence or Crawford, you cannot be serious..... Pac just beat him..... and I would also favor Porter to beat Thurman at this point, Keith has not looked like the same fighter since returning from injury/inactivity

    and there is nothing special about beating a guy who would also have lost to a number of other fighters in his division

    not 100% convinced that version of Thurman would beat Horn
    I took the time to read this thread and make a comment, yes, but what does that say about you who’s also done the same and more?

    Being dishonest as I said, you’re trying to not even put words in my mouth but speak for me lol no I do not disagree with you, in fact I flat out said I’m not here to debate with you over the actual topic.

    Every scenario you’ve described your last post is speculative, unless it happens it’s not a fact, period. The only thing you can argue is that those scenarios are the most likely and probable, and I’d agree if you worded it that way.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Erroid View Post
      I took the time to read this thread and make a comment, yes, but what does that say about you who’s also done the same and more?

      Being dishonest as I said, you’re trying to not even put words in my mouth but speak for me lol no I do not disagree with you, in fact I flat out said I’m not here to debate with you over the actual topic.

      Every scenario you’ve described your last post is speculative, unless it happens it’s not a fact, period. The only thing you can argue is that those scenarios are the most likely and probable, and I’d agree if you worded it that way.




      either way is fine

      likely... probably... proves the same point

      beating Thurman was... likely... probably... not a great achievement, or even close

      Comment


      • LOL at saying "could have" or "should have" then calling it facts

        Yes, Thurman "could have" been beaten by Spence or Bud but it is NOT a fact that he lost to them

        The FACT is that Pac did BEAT Thurman where other just pretending they "could've" beaten him yada yada

        Comment


        • Originally posted by aboutfkntime View Post
          yes it does Hugh, that is EXACTLY what it means

          Thurman is largely unproven, his best win is scraping past Shawn Porter..... and Thurman has not looked like the same fighter since returning from injury/inactivity

          he nearly got knocked out by a journeyman in his last fight

          FACT: a number of welters could have beaten Thurman

          FACT: there is nothing special about beating a guy who would also have lost to a number of other fighters

          all Pac beating Thurman means... is that Pac was not shot when Floyd dismantled him

          you muppets do this before/after every Pac fight LMAO
          In your simple floyd fanboy mind.
          Horns win over pac isn't greater than anything on pac s resume. Turpins win over SR R isn't better than all SRr wins and achievements. You see where I'm going with this? I know everyone can see.
          There's lots of things to consider. Nobody is impressed with horns win over pac for starters, even though Pac is an higher echelon ATG and a lovely name on horns resume. I know you so badly wanting people to be impressed with floyds win over pac, but sorry to break it to you. People arent just like people arent impressed with horns win over pac.
          Even though Pac s a higher atg than thurman will ever be, Pac s win over thurman at 40 is better than anything on floyds cv
          Last edited by hugh grant; 08-09-2019, 02:58 AM.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Blond Beast View Post
            I think u pointed out all the right issues. I think Manny is in any argument. But I think people need to remember that someone who started @140 would have to win all the way up to the HW title to get 8 diff weight championships. Manny climbed through the weights but he never made any leaps. Those lowest weight jumps aren’t relative in difficulty to the higher ones. He’s still amazing though.
            I don't see why you expect a skinny pac that i think started at 106 to beat and top the HW guys..

            And to quote you..

            "Those lowest weight jumps aren’t relative in difficulty to the higher ones."

            Now, the above is something that rings a bell on the following issue...

            I can't recall how many times i read about boxer so and so is a CW (catch weight) King...taking advantage of demanding an opponent to agree to a given weight...some involving just about 2lbs or thereabout over or below a class weight...and a win is seen as a watered down W...if obtained via CW...

            and..do we expect those at HW to go down in weight so much as to get titles at the lower classes?

            Comment


            • Originally posted by BALLS DEEP View Post
              Pac lost to Floyd.
              That doesn't discredit an entire career and look at your profile dude it screams NPC...

              Comment


              • Originally posted by aboutfkntime View Post
                a good sensible post

                that comes down to size/body-type/metabolism..... it has nothing to do with greatness

                many great fighters only ever fought in 1 division..... and some of those great fighters are a LOT higher than Pac/Mayweather on the ATG list

                also, back in the day..... there were only 8 divisions

                there were also..... only 8 titles

                we cannot use justification to measure greatness today, that did not exist back when we first started measuring greatness..... which is AT LEAST John L Sullivan

                who did you beat, with consideration given to when/how..... nothing else matters..... that way we can compare across era's
                Will highly appreciate for you to expound on the quoted statements below...

                "we cannot use justification to measure greatness today, that did not exist back when we first started measuring greatness..... which is AT LEAST John L Sullivan

                who did you beat, with consideration given to when/how..... nothing else matters..... that way we can compare across era's"

                as I read your statements I think you do not believe in today's boxing setup...so many weight classes and titles...and that we have to go back to john l. sullivan's era as the measuring yard...

                i may be seeing ghosts..but that means totally or say partially obliterating the accomplishments of today's fighters...how do you really compare across eras when you have a biased view on only one?

                Comment


                • Originally posted by tangalog2200 View Post
                  I don't see why you expect a skinny pac that i think started at 106 to beat and top the HW guys..

                  And to quote you..

                  "Those lowest weight jumps aren’t relative in difficulty to the higher ones."

                  Now, the above is something that rings a bell on the following issue...

                  I can't recall how many times i read about boxer so and so is a CW (catch weight) King...taking advantage of demanding an opponent to agree to a given weight...some involving just about 2lbs or thereabout over or below a class weight...and a win is seen as a watered down W...if obtained via CW...

                  and..do we expect those at HW to go down in weight so much as to get titles at the lower classes?
                  The guy with the most division titles started at the bottom, which makes all the logical sense in the world. U saying it’s just a coincidence? Do u think there’s a big demographic of people who weigh 105lbs and box? What for all the big money down there? How many of those lightest weight fighters can u name? How many were on a p4p list? It’s like being the best fighter over 400lbs. It’s a tiny demographic. There’s a reason why 140-147 is stacked, a lot of people fit into that category. Tons of people can move up or cut down to 160, that’s why it’s a prestigious title. There’s only a minute amount of people that can make those lower weights, so the competition pool to draw on is nowhere near the same as the upper weights. Do u think the best jockey in the world beat out more people than the best tennis player? It is what it is. Manny is short it’s how he made 105lbs and his skill and speed is how despite that he managed to climb. But don’t get it twisted, titles at those lower weights will never be worth the same as the higher ones. Manny added almost half his body weight in his career. U think that’s relative to a middleweight doing that and being shape? I’m not talking about a fat James Toney. It’s as simple as the law of diminishing returns. It doesn’t all scale up the same.

                  Comment


                  • He's top 5. His resume is insane, easily one of the most stacked ever. Great wins and some losses but only to greats in the peak of his career.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Blond Beast View Post
                      The guy with the most division titles started at the bottom, which makes all the logical sense in the world. U saying it’s just a coincidence? Do u think there’s a big demographic of people who weigh 105lbs and box? What for all the big money down there? How many of those lightest weight fighters can u name? How many were on a p4p list? It’s like being the best fighter over 400lbs. It’s a tiny demographic. There’s a reason why 140-147 is stacked, a lot of people fit into that category. Tons of people can move up or cut down to 160, that’s why it’s a prestigious title. There’s only a minute amount of people that can make those lower weights, so the competition pool to draw on is nowhere near the same as the upper weights. Do u think the best jockey in the world beat out more people than the best tennis player? It is what it is. Manny is short it’s how he made 105lbs and his skill and speed is how despite that he managed to climb. But don’t get it twisted, titles at those lower weights will never be worth the same as the higher ones. Manny added almost half his body weight in his career. U think that’s relative to a middleweight doing that and being shape? I’m not talking about a fat James Toney. It’s as simple as the law of diminishing returns. It doesn’t all scale up the same.
                      "But don’t get it twisted, titles at those lower weights will never be worth the same as the higher ones."

                      Why and how so? Beauty is at the eyes of the beholder. Most likely a case of pizza vs shawarma? Of course, it was the HW fights that drew my interest in boxing. Ali to me is the GOAT. However, the HW after Iron Mike and Evander is not up to my taste..not saying there are no good HWs today...just that it is what it is to me..

                      the fact that the highest grossing fight was between may and pac somehow put your above statement to a test...

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X
                      TOP