# In an objective standpoint, Manny Pacquiao probably ranks 80-90 in an ATG list



## MVC (Jun 3, 2013)

Note: This is not a troll thread. There are MANY people besides me who don't have Pac in the top 50. So why is this so ludicrous? 

When Bert Sugar was alive, he had Pac nowhere near the top 50. Doug Fischer is another who share the same opinion. 

I have Manny Pac probably around 80-90

If you look at dominance/accomplishments alone, there's no way you can have him that high. 

Where do you guys put Manny Pac?

Being an 8 division champ is good but that's just not enough to make it. Sure he's got some pretty decent wins here and there (Pre 135) but who in the top 80 doesn't have their share of decent wins?

This is in no way a bashing Pac thread. Top 90 is still extremely good. Pac is an extremely accomplished fighter and has really brought a lot of good casual fans into the boxing world. 

His 2009-2010 years were good.

Just goes to show the depth of ATG boxing lists. 

:bbb


----------



## Mal (Aug 25, 2013)

Trolling, whether intentional, sincere, or to fuck with people, is still trolling. Give if a rest. It's blatantly obvious what this is.


----------



## adamcanavan (Jun 5, 2012)

Mal said:


> Trolling, whether intentional, sincere, or to fuck with people, is still trolling. Give if a rest. It's blatantly obvious what this is.


This. I have floyd and pacquiao in my top 40. Stupid thread obviously trying to cause a reaction


----------



## MVC (Jun 3, 2013)

adamcanavan said:


> This. I have floyd and pacquiao in my top 40. Stupid thread obviously trying to cause a reaction


Not everyone has to agree with you. For your information, many people have them out of top 50. Some even top 80.


----------



## MadcapMaxie (May 21, 2013)

adamcanavan said:


> This. I have floyd and pacquiao in my top 40. Stupid thread obviously trying to cause a reaction


As do I (might come as a shock to some) Pac mid 30's and Floyd closer to 30. This shit is getting real tired though.


----------



## adamcanavan (Jun 5, 2012)

MVC said:


> Not everyone has to agree with you. For your information, many people have them out of top 50. Some even top 80.


But this thread has little or no reason than to discredit pacquiao and, considering you are so big on floyd, somehow big him up. They are so similar in achievement and I think pac has a better resume. So are you saying that floyd isnt in the top 80? If not then you are very much looking at it subjectively.


----------



## MVC (Jun 3, 2013)

adamcanavan said:


> But this thread has little or no reason than to discredit pacquiao and, considering you are so big on fkoyd, somehow big him up. They are so similar in achievement and I think pac has a better resume. So are you saying that floyd isnt in the top 80? If so then you are very kuch looking at it subjectively.


Well it's your opinion that Pac has a better resume. I haven't even made a statement in regards to that yet.

Anyways, it's an opinion shared by many analysts around the world. Even Bert Sugar (RIP), Doug Fischer and them don't have these top close to the top 50.

I don't see how I'm trolling when it's an opinion shared by many boxing writers/analysts in the boxing world today. :rolleyes


----------



## uraharakisuke (May 16, 2013)

Yeah the covert "make Floyd look better at the cost of Pac" thread.

I have Manny just equal or one higher than Floyd.


----------



## MVC (Jun 3, 2013)

uraharakisuke said:


> Yeah the covert "make Floyd look better at the cost of Pac" thread.
> 
> I have Manny just equal or one higher than Floyd.


Great, your opinion.


----------



## adamcanavan (Jun 5, 2012)

MVC said:


> Well it's your opinion that Pac has a better resume. I haven't even made a statement in regards to that yet.
> 
> Anyways, it's an opinion shared by many analysts around the world. Even Bert Sugar (RIP), Doug Fischer and them don't have these top close to the top 50.


I wasnt making a point about te resumés solely. I was basically asking where you have floyd?


----------



## MVC (Jun 3, 2013)

adamcanavan said:


> I wasnt making a point about te resumés solely. I was basically asking where you have floyd?


Is it relevant to the thread?

We're discussing Pacquiao atm, not Floyd.

Floyd's standing in the ATG list has no bearing on where Pac stands.


----------



## adamcanavan (Jun 5, 2012)

MVC said:


> Is it relevant to the thread?
> 
> We're discussing Pacquiao atm, not Floyd.


It's relevant to whether your argument is truely objective or subjective. So considering the thread is about how objectively you should rank fighters I would say it's extremely relevant


----------



## MVC (Jun 3, 2013)

adamcanavan said:


> It's relevant to whether your argument is truely objective or subjective. So considering the thread is about how objectively you should rank fighters I would say it's extremely relevant


But really, you're just judging objectivity by your own standards. So how can you make an accurate judgement in this case?

If I say Mayweather is ahead by a mile, you're going to call me biased. So your question where Mayweather lies on the list really has no bearing as I've stated before on where Pac stands.

Pac and Mayweather in my dictionary are two different fighters. One's place on the list has no bearing on where another lies.

I'm going to say I have Mayweather ahead solely due to dominance/legacy.

Where he lies on the list, we'll save for another day.

I'm being as objective as I can be. Believe it or not.


----------



## adamcanavan (Jun 5, 2012)

MVC said:


> I'm going to say I have Mayweather ahead solely due to dominance/legacy.
> 
> Where he lies on the list, we'll save for another day.
> 
> I'm being as objective as I can be. Believe it or not.


Well where he lies on the list is kind of important as to whether you're truly being subjective... for example if youre saying pac is max no.80 and floyd is top 30 then ir's clear that is a not an unbiased objective view, if you have pac at max 80 and floyd at something like 75 then fair enough


----------



## MVC (Jun 3, 2013)

adamcanavan said:


> Well where he lies on the list is kind of important as to whether you're truly being subjective... for example if youre saying pac is max no.80 and floyd is top 30 then ir's clear that is a not an unbiased objective view, if you have pac at max 80 and floyd at something like 75 then fair enough


Once again, you're assessing subjectivity/objectivity by your own principals and therefore you're not going to give me a fair shake

If I say Mayweather is ahead by a mile, you're going to call me biased/subjective because you believe that they are just as accomplished as one another.

Mayweather and Pacquiao are two different fighters with 2 different legacies/accomplishments. One's place in the ATG list has no bearing on the other.

That's my point.


----------



## MGS (Jun 14, 2013)

MVC said:


> When Bert Sugar was alive, he had Pac nowhere near the top 50.


already FOS :lol:


----------



## MVC (Jun 3, 2013)

MGS said:


> already FOS :lol:


Bert Sugar's list. Do your research before commenting.

1. Sugar Ray Robinson
2. Henry Armstrong
3. Wille Pep
4. Joe Louis
5. Harry Greb
6. Benny Leonard
7. Muhammad Ali
8. Roberto Duran
9. Jack Dempsey
10. Jack Johnson

11. Mickey Walker
12. Tony Canzoneri
13. Gene Tunney
14. Rocky Marciano
15. Joe Gans
16. Sam Langford
17. Julio Cesar Chavez
18. Jimmy Wilde
19. Stanley Ketchel
20 Barney Ross

21, Jimmy McLarnin
22. Archie Moore
23. Marcel Cerdan
24. Ezzard Charles
25. Sugar Ray Leonard
26. Joe Walcott (The original)
27. Jake LaMotta
28. Eder Jofre
29. Emile Griffith
30. Terry McGovern

31. George Foreman
32. Johnny Dundee
33. Jose Napoles
34. Pascual Perez
35. Billy Conn
36. Ruben Olivares
37. Joe Frazier
38. Tommy Loughran
39. Sandy Saddler
40. Kid Chocolate
41. Abe Attell
42. Evander Holyfield
43. George Dixon
44. Maxie Rosenbloom
45. Larry Holmes
46. Ted "Kid" Lewis
47. Marvin Hagler
48. Pernell Whitaker
49. Carlos Zarate
50. Thomas Hearns

51. Battling Nelson
52. Beau Jack
53. Ricardo ;Lopez
54. John L. Sullivan
55. Carlos Monzon
56. Alexis Arguello
57. Carmen Basillio
58. Pete Herman
59. Charley Burley
60. Ike Williams
61. Kid Gavilan
62. Jack Britton
63. Dick Tiger
64. Pancho Villa
65. Panama Al Brown
66. Bob Fitszimmons
67. Philadelphia Jack O'Brien
68. Tiger Flowers
69. James J.Corbett
70. Tony Zale

71. Tommy Ryan
72. Georges Carpentier
73, Sonny Liston
74. "Kid" McCoy
75. Bob Foster
76. Freddie Welsh
77. Joe Jeanette
78. Jim Driscoll
79. Jersey Joe Walcott
80. Peter Jackson
81. Ad Wolgast
82. Jack Dempsey (The Nonpareil)
83. Manuel Ortiz
84. James J. Jeffries
85. Salvador Sanchez

86. Jimmy Barry
87. Carlos Ortiz
88. Roy Jones Jr.
89. Wilfredo Gomez
90. Aaron Pryor
91. Bernard Hopkins
92. Mike Gibbons
93. Jack Delaney
94. Johnny Kilbane
95. Willie Ritchie
96. Wilfredo Benitez
97. Packey McFarland
98. Rocky Graziano
99. Lew Jenkins
100. Mike Tyson


----------



## adamcanavan (Jun 5, 2012)

MVC said:


> Once again, you're assessing subjectivity/objectivity by your own principals and therefore you're not going to give me a fair shake
> 
> If I say Mayweather is ahead by a mile, you're going to call me biased/subjective because you believe that they are just as accomplished as one another.
> 
> ...


No but objectively they are very close together in terms of achievemnt and resumes and performances so I'm just saying that to have floyd "a mile ahead" is clearly not an objective way of looking at it and it is well known thay you are a huge mayweather fan (nothing wrong with that in itself) but it just seems like this whole theead is a way of trying to boost mayweather at pac's expense. Objectively they would be very close to eachother on a list


----------



## MVC (Jun 3, 2013)

adamcanavan said:


> No but objectively they are very close together in terms of achievemnt and resumes and performances so I'm just saying that to have floyd "a mile ahead" is clearly not an objective way of looking at it and it is well known thay you are a huge mayweather fan (nothing wrong with that in itself) but it just seems like this whole theead is a way of trying to boost mayweather at pac's expense. Objectively they would be very close to eachother on a list


That's what you think though. I've never once tried to boost Mayweather's accomplishments at the expense of Pac. That's your interpretation.

What is also your interpretation is that they are similar to each other and belong in the same ranking.

Which of course is not true. There are many factors in determining a fighter's place in the rankings.

When I said "A mile ahead," i was using that as an example.


----------



## Mr. Brain (Jun 4, 2013)

MVC said:


> Note: This is not a troll thread. There are MANY people besides me who don't have Pac in the top 50. So why is this so ludicrous?
> 
> When Bert Sugar was alive, he had Pac nowhere near the top 50. Doug Fischer is another who share the same opinion.
> 
> ...


Trolling? doesn't mater, I find myself agreeing.


----------



## MVC (Jun 3, 2013)

Mr. Brain said:


> Trolling? doesn't mater, I find myself agreeing.


Thank you sir.


----------



## adamcanavan (Jun 5, 2012)

MVC said:


> Once again, *you're assessing subjectivity/objectivity by your own principals *and therefore you're not going to give me a fair shake
> 
> If I say Mayweather is ahead by a mile, you're going to call me biased/subjective because you believe that they are just as accomplished as one another.
> 
> ...


Plus isnt this what youre doing with the whole thread, making this thread entirely pointless?


----------



## MVC (Jun 3, 2013)

adamcanavan said:


> Plus isnt this what youre doing with the whole thread, making this thread entirely pointless?


? Why is it pointless?

I'm giving my opinion and I've never once said that you were wrong or anyone else is wrong because it's pretty pointless. You're here judging me by making claims that I'm biased/trying to boost Mayweather's name by downplaying Pacquiao's achievements.

I've also stated that this opinion is shared by boxing historians like Bert Sugar and analysts like Doug Fischer etc etc.

I do believe this to be an objective analysis, because this opinion is so widely shared by so many historians.


----------



## Brnxhands (Jun 11, 2013)

Bert sugar has jack dempsey number 9. That should tell you all you need to know about him


----------



## MVC (Jun 3, 2013)

Brnxhands said:


> Bert sugar has jack dempsey number 9. That should tell you all you need to know about him


Well to be entirely honest with you, he probably knew a tad more boxing than you and I and probably everyone else on this forum.

I don't agree with Dempsey at 9, but he probably had his reasons for putting the man there.


----------



## adamcanavan (Jun 5, 2012)

MVC said:


> ? Why is it pointless?
> 
> I'm giving my opinion and I've never once said that you were wrong or anyone else is wrong. You're here judging me by making claims that I'm biased/trying to boost Mayweather's name by downplaying Pacquiao's achievements.


Well objectively mayweather and pacquiao are very close in terms of legacy factors, so my point was that if you have mayweather 30 places above there isnt enough to justify that he is that far ahead if you are being fair. Compare Pac's top 5 wins to mayweathers and try to justify how he could be a mile ahead. Sorry but I just cant see it. If pac is objectively top 80 at most then floyd cant realistically make the top 50.


----------



## r1p00pk (Jun 13, 2013)

Fuck off mvc go back to being a good poster on your normal account


----------



## MVC (Jun 3, 2013)

adamcanavan said:


> Well objectively mayweather and pacquiao are very close in terms of legacy factors, so my point was that if you have mayweather 30 places above there isnt enough to justify that he is that far ahead if you are being fair. Compare Pac's top 5 wins to mayweathers and try to justify how he could be a mile ahead. Sorry but I just cant see it. If pac is objectively top 80 at most then floyd cant realistically make the top 50.


Once again, that's your analysis of all of this.

You believe that Pac and Mayweather should be linked close to one another. Others may not. It's your opinion.

I haven't said a word about this at all because I don't believe it to be all that relevant.

When you analyze Ray Leonard's ATG standings, you don't need to also analyze Duran/Hagler/Hearn's place in the standings. Because it isn't all that relevant to Ray's standings.

We're talking about Pac's standing here, so bringing in Mayweather is not a necessity at all. All I can say is, I'm being as unbiased as I possibly can.

I believe that they have a completely different resume/legacy. And therefore, where one places has no bearing on the other.


----------



## MGS (Jun 14, 2013)

MVC said:


> Bert Sugar's list. Do your research before commenting.


That's the list in Boxing's Greatest Fighters (which I own), Manny Pacquiao became a superstar after it was published. When asked about Pacquiao, Burt Sugar said he has him in the top 25.


----------



## MVC (Jun 3, 2013)

MGS said:


> That's the list in Boxing's Greatest Fighters (which I own), Manny Pacquiao took off after it was published. When asked about Pacquiao, Burt Sugar said he has him in the top 25.


Actually, from my knowledge, this list was made in 2010. He already took off and had some of his peak performances. (Pre Cotto)

If you have any evidence of Bert calling him a top 25, I'd love to see it. I'd love to be proven wrong.

I highly doubt a Clottey/Cotto/Margarito victory changed his views all that much. And even if he said it, he probably just said it out of the blue without much thought into it.

There is no way he would have meant it


----------



## uraharakisuke (May 16, 2013)

MVC said:


> Once again, that's your analysis of all of this.
> 
> You believe that Pac and Mayweather should be linked close to one another. Others may not. It's your opinion.
> 
> ...


When you analyse SRL's ranking I think you have to analyse Hagler's/Hearn's etc. as they are his best wins, you need perspective.


----------



## JMP (Jun 3, 2013)

Bert Sugar was a fucking moron. Nice guy and a great storyteller, but his rankings don't mean shit.


----------



## Dealt_with (Jun 4, 2013)

I rate him above Floyd


----------



## MGS (Jun 14, 2013)

MVC said:


> Actually, from my knowledge, this list was made in 2010. He already took off and had some of his peak performances. (Pre Cotto)
> 
> If you have any evidence of Bert calling him a top 25, I'd love to see it. I'd love to be proven wrong.
> 
> I highly doubt a Clottey/Cotto/Margarito victory changed his views all that much.


no its the same list from like 05-06.

and its a quick google search away dude lol


----------



## MVC (Jun 3, 2013)

uraharakisuke said:


> When you analyse SRL's ranking I think you have to analyse Hagler's/Hearn's etc. as they are his best wins, you need perspective.


To a degree, but it is nowhere near the end all be all.


----------



## errsta (May 16, 2013)

MVC said:


> Bert Sugar's list. Do your research before commenting.
> 
> 1. Sugar Ray Robinson
> 2. Henry Armstrong
> ...


Pep is too high.


----------



## MVC (Jun 3, 2013)

MGS said:


> no its the same list from like 05-06.
> 
> and its a quick google search away dude lol


Actually there wasn't really much of a change when he wrote his 2011 version of "The Ultimate book of boxing lists"

Everything was still the same.


----------



## MGS (Jun 14, 2013)

MVC said:


> Actually there wasn't really much of a change when he wrote his 2011 version of "The Ultimate book of boxing lists"
> 
> Everything was still the same.


...

:lol:


----------



## MVC (Jun 3, 2013)

MGS said:


> ...
> 
> :lol:


Anyways, I'ma hit the hay lol.

Cya later.


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

Damn everyone saw straight through this right away, didn't they? :lol:


----------



## MVC (Jun 3, 2013)

Bogotazo said:


> Damn everyone saw straight through this right away, didn't they? :lol:


Well obviously there aren't going to be many people agreeing with me. The norm on this forum- Pac = Top 30-50.

I just don't agree with it at all.

That's about it.

People may think I'm trolling, but that's not the case at all. Many historians don't have him anywhere near top 30. Even top 50.

I was ready for the criticism.

Anyways, off to bed.


----------



## uraharakisuke (May 16, 2013)

Manny ranks 90 and Floyd ranks 3rd.

Thank fuck for CHB.


----------



## Stunkie (Jun 4, 2013)

MVC said:


> Actually, from my knowledge, this list was made in 2010. He already took off and had some of his peak performances. (Pre Cotto)
> 
> If you have any evidence of Bert calling him a top 25, I'd love to see it. I'd love to be proven wrong.
> 
> ...


http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/chat/_/id/29278/boxing-with-bert-sugar

Bert Sugar: Well, having done several books, including Boxing's Greatest Fighters, Manny Pacquiao gets a large, large place in it, top 20 if not higher. IF he beats Cotto and wins his seventh belt, it's only comparable to Armstrong winning three of the 8 weight classes. Manny Pacquiao, with 17 divisions now, will come close to equaling Armstrong's unprecedented feat. As much as I've ranked Armstrong the second greatest fighter of all time, Pacquiao deserves a second look at how I ranked the top 10. Maybe he ranks higher in the pantheon of greats.


----------



## Bogotazo (May 17, 2013)

Stunkie said:


> http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/chat/_/id/29278/boxing-with-bert-sugar
> 
> Bert Sugar: Well, having done several books, including Boxing's Greatest Fighters, Manny Pacquiao gets a large, large place in it, top 20 if not higher. IF he beats Cotto and wins his seventh belt, it's only comparable to Armstrong winning three of the 8 weight classes. Manny Pacquiao, with 17 divisions now, will come close to equaling Armstrong's unprecedented feat. As much as I've ranked Armstrong the second greatest fighter of all time, Pacquiao deserves a second look at how I ranked the top 10. Maybe he ranks higher in the pantheon of greats.


:rofl


----------



## adamcanavan (Jun 5, 2012)

Stunkie said:


> http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/chat/_/id/29278/boxing-with-bert-sugar
> 
> Bert Sugar: Well, having done several books, including Boxing's Greatest Fighters, Manny Pacquiao gets a large, large place in it, top 20 if not higher. IF he beats Cotto and wins his seventh belt, it's only comparable to Armstrong winning three of the 8 weight classes. Manny Pacquiao, with 17 divisions now, will come close to equaling Armstrong's unprecedented feat. As much as I've ranked Armstrong the second greatest fighter of all time, Pacquiao deserves a second look at how I ranked the top 10. Maybe he ranks higher in the pantheon of greats.


Bert sugar, MVC's go to guy in this thread :lol:


----------



## chongli (Jul 16, 2013)

MVC said:


> Well it's your opinion that Pac has a better resume. I haven't even made a statement in regards to that yet.
> 
> Anyways, it's an opinion shared by many analysts around the world. Even Bert Sugar (RIP), Doug Fischer and them don't have these top close to the top 50.
> 
> I don't see how I'm trolling when it's an opinion shared by many boxing writers/analysts in the boxing world today. :rolleyes


Some Floyd Fans say they don't believe the late Bert Sugar, which I find strange


----------



## bballchump11 (May 17, 2013)

chongli said:


> Some Floyd Fans say they don't believe the late Bert Sugar, which I find strange







go back to esb with this crap boyschoir


----------



## chongli (Jul 16, 2013)

bballchump11 said:


> go back to esb with this crap boyschoir


boyschoir?

please discuss it when is Bert Sugar lying and when is he telling the truth with your fellow Flomo, MVC

I think it will be an epic discussion between you and MVC (catchweights, a midget on PED's etc etc)

Then get back to me


----------



## Mal (Aug 25, 2013)

MVC said:


> Well it's your opinion that Pac has a better resume. I haven't even made a statement in regards to that yet.
> 
> Anyways, it's an opinion shared by many analysts around the world. Even Bert Sugar (RIP), Doug Fischer and them don't have these top close to the top 50.
> 
> I don't see how I'm trolling when it's an opinion shared by many boxing writers/analysts in the boxing world today. :rolleyes


No, it isn't shared by anyone but you. Look, you've admitted to making troll threads before, so why are you trying to act like this is serious. You aren't clever or funny. You're just seeking attention.


----------



## Mal (Aug 25, 2013)

r1p00pk said:


> Fuck off mvc go back to being a good poster on your normal account


What's his normal account?


----------



## tliang1000 (Jun 5, 2013)

The usual suspect butthurt on a thread about Pac. If this thread was about Floyd you've heard all that resume talk bs already. "he didn't have this guy and that guy" blah blah.

Bert Sugar got Pep num3 on his ATG list along with bunch of bum hunting classics. Big surprise? hell no. Like me trying to tell a 60 year old that rock music is pretty good in the 80s-90s.


Oh yeah Floyd's resume shits on Pep. Come at me bro!


----------



## Brnxhands (Jun 11, 2013)

I dont like ber but what is wrong with pep number 3? Pep is the father of modern slick boxing an should never be outside the top 5. "bum hunting classics" Go make more heavy bag videos so we can all laugh at you


tliang1000 said:


> The usual suspect butthurt on a thread about Pac. If this thread was about Floyd you've heard all that resume talk bs already. "he didn't have this guy and that guy" blah blah.
> 
> Bert Sugar got Pep num3 on his ATG list along with bunch of bum hunting classics. Big surprise? hell no. Like me trying to tell a 60 year old that rock music is pretty good in the 80s-90s.
> 
> Oh yeah Floyd's resume shits on Pep. Come at me bro!


----------



## tliang1000 (Jun 5, 2013)

Brnxhands said:


> I dont like ber but what is wrong with pep number 3? Pep is the father of modern slick boxing an should never be outside the top 5. "bum hunting classics" Go make more heavy bag videos so we can all laugh at you


If you don't know what i am talking about then you are just a dumbass, a fool, a gullible public idiot.
BTW, You can laugh all you want as if i care about the opinion of bunch of *LOSERS*.


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

Both are top 50 and Floyd inching closer to the high 30s IMO


----------



## Brnxhands (Jun 11, 2013)

I have floyd 25-30. alot have fought better opponents but not many did what hes doing right now. Been on top so long, through so many divisions and title fights without a blemish on his record


----------



## The Undefeated Gaul (Jun 4, 2013)

Haha he's definitely in the Top 50, maybe early 40's.

W Barrerax2
W Cotto
W Hatton
3 even fights with JMM
W Sasakul
W Margarito
W Morales 2
W Lehwaba
W Clottey
L JMM


Pacquiao was the smaller guy against Cotto, Hatton, Margarito.


----------



## TFG (Jul 23, 2013)

As a few others have said, they are both top 50 fighters. However, Floyd has to be ranked higher in my book. A lot of people don't even consider Pacquiao's losses in this debate. Mayweather has managed something pretty amazing. He's fought a similar crop of opponents to Pacquiao, some less challenging, some more challenging, but he has done it all whilst remaining undefeated. That has to hold a huge amount of weight when considering the like for like accomplishments of both fighters. It certainly means more than ranking a fighter higher because he has technically climbed eight weight divisions. That's just a number, in reality, we know it doesn't really mean all that much past 5/6.


----------



## MGS (Jun 14, 2013)

oh yeah uhhh disclaimer. just cause I own Boxing's Greatest Fighters doesn't mean I 100% agree with it :smile

not that anyone cares what I think :yep


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

I got Floyd around 35 and Manny around 40. Not much between them, Pacquaio has the better resume and Floyd is the better fighter. theres not a lot between them tbh.

They are both top 50 imo


----------



## Brighton Bomber (May 25, 2013)

Bert sugars list of 100 greatest fighters doesn't even have Mayweather in the top 100. This is because it was compiled prior to many of Pacs and Mayweather's greatest achievements.

The link below prior to Pac beating Cotto he says Pac is top 20. He also says if Pac beats Cotto he should be considered for top 10!

So MVC with this new information where do you rank Pac now because the person you have quoted has now contradicted your original point?

http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/chat/_/id/29278/boxing-with-bert-sugar


----------



## JamieC (Jun 2, 2012)

Chatty said:


> I got Floyd around 35 and Manny around 40. Not much between them, Pacquaio has the better resume and Floyd is the better fighter. theres not a lot between them tbh.
> 
> They are both top 50 imo


fair assessment, I do think Pac has the better resume, but Floyds consistency has to count for something and his performances have often been great against good opposition


----------



## TeddyL (Oct 5, 2013)

I came here to get away from troll threads like this shit. :-(


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

TeddyL said:


> I came here to get away from troll threads like this shit. :-(


Then create some untrollish threads :good


----------



## Stone Rose (Jul 15, 2013)

Top 50 for sure, probably top 40. He's had an amazing career and one of the most exciting, hard little b*stards in living memory who took on all comers.


----------



## oibighead (May 23, 2013)

I have Floyd higher than Manny but Pac is legitimately up there with the best. His resume is packed with incredible wins.


----------



## randomwalk (Jul 13, 2013)

MVC said:


> Note: This is not a troll thread. There are MANY people besides me who don't have Pac in the top 50. So why is this so ludicrous?
> 
> When Bert Sugar was alive, he had Pac nowhere near the top 50. Doug Fischer is another who share the same opinion.


Rankings are subjective, but you are disingenuous with your Pac troll threads. And Bert Sugar said the following:




Bert Sugar said:


> While it is never been my habit to include a fighter who is still fighting, because I can not judge his entire career and/or where his prime was (his prime is where I judge) I think Manny Pacquiao is making one helluva case to be included. He's not only the greatest Asian fighter of all time, but the greatest lefthanded fighter of all time. But I will wait until I see where his next fights take him. I will wait on Mayweather. And, depending on July 18, Marquez.


http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/chat/_/id/26810

I don't necessarily agree with Bert's assessment, but your claims are false.


----------



## Eoghan (Jun 6, 2013)

Anyone who had PAC that low is probably forgetting about his achievements in the lower weights


----------



## MVC (Jun 3, 2013)

Brighton Bomber said:


> Bert sugars list of 100 greatest fighters doesn't even have Mayweather in the top 100. This is because it was compiled prior to many of Pacs and Mayweather's greatest achievements.
> 
> The link below prior to Pac beating Cotto he says Pac is top 20. He also says if Pac beats Cotto he should be considered for top 10!
> 
> ...


Actually you are wrong. When Bert Sugar re-evaluated his list in 2011 (Ultimate list of Boxers), he had his list very similar to what he had in the past (The list I posted). There is no reason to believe that he would have Pac significantly higher than what he had in the past.

Isn't it a funny fact that all the evidence you guys have posted is from ESPN, a company which probably paid Bert off to spout ridiculous things like that.

"What Manny is doing now is just as great as what Henry Armstrong did, I really have to evaluate my top 10 list and have Manny on there"

You can see in the interview that he was peer pressured to say what he said due to the content of the questions.

Obviously he's going to praise him to no end. He isn't going to take a dump on Manny's accomplishments and rip on him on national television especially since Manny JUST WON in some of those interviews. In those interviews, he calls him a top 10 fighter.

*But in the 2011 re-evaluated list, he's nowhere near there. Suspicion....*

Brian Kenny was asking questions to the effect of "Omg Manny Pacquiao is one of the greatest of all time, he probably ranks in the teens right"

Bert Sugar "Yeah.... you gotta have him that high" :rolleyes


----------



## Chatty (Jun 6, 2012)

MVC said:


> Actually you are wrong. When Bert Sugar re-evaluated his list in 2011 (Ultimate list of Boxers), he had his list very similar to what he had in the past (The list I posted). There is no reason to believe that he would have Pac significantly higher than what he had in the past.
> 
> Isn't it a funny fact that all the evidence you guys have posted is from ESPN, a company which probably paid Bert off to spout ridiculous things like that.
> 
> ...


So your just theorizing in your own mind and then presenting it as fact nowatsch


----------



## Pimp C (Jun 3, 2013)

Pac is a top 45 ATG PBF is a top 25 ATG


----------



## mick557 (Jun 6, 2013)

This guy probably has Leonard Ellerbe ranked higher than Pacquiao.


----------



## Raging B(_)LL (Jul 14, 2013)

The more I think about these ATG lists the more I become convinced that there is a need to create a list for fighters that fought in the late 19th century up until the day that one champion per one weight division stopped existing and the era of multiple belts began, and from that day forth a new list of ATG fighters should be begun to the present day and beyond.

My reasoning is that because the sport has evolved and changed so much since the days of one champion in each weight class to the era of multiple belts and increased weight divisions that to accurately place modern fighters on a list in which their peers of era`s past far eclipsed them in terms of longevity, number of bouts fought and in many instances quality of opposition is unfair to a certain extent.

Not to mention the day before weigh-ins and other changes in boxing such as the ten point must scoring system over the rounds based or 5 point scoring system used in previous era`s. How can a fighter like Floyd Mayweather for example measure up against a fighter such as Henry Armstrong when taking into consideration the luxury he has of living in an era that does not require fighters at the elite level to fight every other week or month just to make a living?

And how do we compare past era`s in which the sport was replete with quality fighters all vying to become champion when there was only one undisputed title to be won in their weight class unlike today`s fighters going back to the 60`s when multiple belts began to make their appearance on the boxing landscape? Does anyone else agree that it is perhaps time to find a year from which to start separating the ATG list of fighters into two different categories one listing fighters of yesteryear with the cut-off being when the year of more than one belt per weight division began?

I think this would be a rather good idea and it would save a lot of needless arguing in many ways.

Thoughts?


----------



## Vano-irons (Jun 6, 2012)

I respected Bert as a boxing historian, but his rankings are always awful. He had Ezzard Charles as the 5th best heavyweight ever, with Lennox Lewis 'somewhere around 18th or 19th below Corbett and O'Sullivan' on an ESPN DVD.

As for this thread, Pacquiao's resume and achievements put him into the top 80 at a very fucking minimum. I'd have both him and Floyd in my top 40


----------



## Mal (Aug 25, 2013)

Raging B(_)LL said:


> The more I think about these ATG lists the more I become convinced that there is a need to create a list for fighters that fought in the late 19th century up until the day that one champion per one weight division stopped existing and the era of multiple belts began, and from that day forth a new list of ATG fighters should be begun to the present day and beyond.
> 
> My reasoning is that because the sport has evolved and changed so much since the days of one champion in each weight class to the era of multiple belts and increased weight divisions that to accurately place modern fighters on a list in which their peers of era`s past far eclipsed them in terms of longevity, number of bouts fought and in many instances quality of opposition is unfair to a certain extent.
> 
> ...


I think this is a very good question. It might need, that boxing's history gets seperated and ranked appropriately by the era where there were great changes. Baseball has done that (somewhat), and with so many changes that have occurred in boxing the past 50 years, which is just amplified the last 20, it becomes almost moot to try and compare fighters today, from fighters 50 years ago. It not only becomes apples and oranges, but moreso meats and vegetables.


----------



## Raging B(_)LL (Jul 14, 2013)

Mal said:


> I think this is a very good question. It might need, that boxing's history gets seperated and ranked appropriately by the era where there were great changes. Baseball has done that (somewhat), and with so many changes that have occurred in boxing the past 50 years, which is just amplified the last 20, it becomes almost moot to try and compare fighters today, from fighters 50 years ago. It not only becomes apples and oranges, but moreso meats and vegetables.


I think it is going to be necessary to do so at some point. Fighter`s today and over the past 50 years have so many luxury`s available to them that were simply unheard of back in the day`s of one champion per weight class when there was only 8 division`s to compete in that making accurate comparison`s between fighters of that era and of the modern era become very difficult.

Let`s take Pacquiao and Mayweather for example, both men are multiple weight class title holders and for some people this implies that they are greater than fighters who did not have the luxury of fighting in an era where there was far more weight classes available to compete in. But does anyone doubt that a fighter such as Armstrong for example couldn`t have achieved the same thing had the opportunity been present for him to do so?

Another thing that bother`s me to no end is the undefeated record which is somehow held as the benchmark of greatness in today`s era of boxing, does anyone truly believe the likes of Floyd as talented a fighter as he is would have stayed undefeated if he would have had to fight every other week or month against a plethora of good to great fighters and walked away without a loss here and there?

Fighting that often was the norm for fighters of yesteryear and an occasional loss here and there even for elite fighters was not considered career ending for the simple fact that when you are that active against other quality opposition it is not unusual to have an off-night where you suffer a loss. But today elite fighters have the luxury of taking several months off between fights to recuperate and rest while still staying active outside the ring and keep training thus giving them more time to prepare for their next opponent.

And the list of differences goes on and on with no end, which is why I cannot rank fighters such as Mayweather, Hopkins and Pacquiao on the same totem pole of great fighters because of the glaring differences between their respective era`s. The question will always remain in my mind as to wether the dominance they have displayed in their own time could have been duplicated under a completely different set of circumstances and rules in a sport that has evolved considerably over the last 50 years.

I would take the time to figure this all out if I wasn`t so busy, but maybe some day I will attempt to do so although if anyone else would like to give it a try they are welcome to do so.


----------



## Danimal (Oct 9, 2013)

In order to have Manny outside my top 50 I'd have to include a lot of old school fighters I've never actually seen fight. I can definitely see how an argument could be made though.


----------



## Mal (Aug 25, 2013)

Raging B(_)LL said:


> I think it is going to be necessary to do so at some point. Fighter`s today and over the past 50 years have so many luxury`s available to them that were simply unheard of back in the day`s of one champion per weight class when there was only 8 division`s to compete in that making accurate comparison`s between fighters of that era and of the modern era become very difficult.
> 
> Let`s take Pacquiao and Mayweather for example, both men are multiple weight class title holders and for some people this implies that they are greater than fighters who did not have the luxury of fighting in an era where there was far more weight classes available to compete in. But does anyone doubt that a fighter such as Armstrong for example couldn`t have achieved the same thing had the opportunity been present for him to do so?
> 
> ...


Very good points again. To see just how devalued the idea of being a multiple weight champion can be, all one has to do is look at those fighters today who are campaigning as just that. Lets take Adrien Broner, and Robert Guerrero for example. Technically, each are considered multiple weight champs. But how may of each "title" they held had they been seen as the World Champion? I will always recognize only one guy as a World champion, anyone else, even if they hold a belt, are really just contenders to the one true World Champ.

And I accept that certain times, who the one true World champ is can be hard to spot. Unless the guys who hold the belts square off, to leave no doubts at all, in the ring of course, it's always going to be a matter of opinion, or preference to fighters. My mantra is, the fighter makes the belt worthy, not the belt makes a fighter worthy. A fighter can legitimize a lesser belt by defending it successfully against top notch opponents consistently. Was Zab Judah a better WW because he held a lineal belt for a second, then say, Antonio Margarito, who defended his WBO belt successfully versus other top ranked WW's at the time? Winning a belt, then moving up immediately really doesn't tell one much, other then one can win a fight. Also, take a look at Ricardo Mayorga, and Zab Judah. Both have won bets in two divisions, but were only the recognized World champs in one, WW. But the books show them as multiple division champions. And as much as I love Miguel Cotto, he's a three division champions, but had anyone ever considered him the recognized World champ fro, 140 to 154? I don't believe so. same goes for Manny Pascuiao. I know he won a JrMW belt, but will anyone even remember that, or consider him a true World Champ at jrMW? I wouldn't.

I guess today's boxing titlists have greatly watered down the idea of multiple division champs, perhaps looking at that feat as a mark of greatness and an autpomatic entrance to the HOF. There's so much more that must be looked at, and taken into consideration, as a road to greatness, along with holding on the "0" as long as possible. It wasn't all that long ago that SRL's SprMW championship was seen as a sham. But by today's standards, it looks more and more legitimate, which it really isn't. Boxing is much too complex to just take simplified criteria as a road to greatness.


----------



## Boxed Ears (Jun 13, 2012)

Pacquiao is not an ATG. Who'd he beat?


----------



## r1p00pk (Jun 13, 2013)

@Mal

fuck, i honestly forgot his other account today but i new it yesterday haha its on the tip of my tongue. I told Bogo who he was. I posted in a thread where MVC posted and acidently posted on his two accounts and acidently ended up talking to himself as his other account. It's on ESB but i tried to find it but couldnt. but yeah, bogo should know.


----------



## JMP (Jun 3, 2013)

Boxed Ears said:


> Pacquiao is not an ATG. Who'd he beat?


Mira, Hussein, 3K Battery, Fahprakorb, and Rakkiatgym you moron.


----------



## MVC (Jun 3, 2013)

r1p00pk said:


> @Mal
> 
> fuck, i honestly forgot his other account today but i new it yesterday haha its on the tip of my tongue. I told Bogo who he was. I posted in a thread where MVC posted and acidently posted on his two accounts and acidently ended up talking to himself as his other account. It's on ESB but i tried to find it but couldnt. but yeah, bogo should know.


Are you serious? I don't have an ALT LOL. Not on ESB and not on CHB.

I made another account after MVC got banned named KLIT. Was trolling some TKO6Tards for a day or two there.

You can ask any mod.

There was this kid pretending to be me or some shit for a while there. I to this day have no idea who that was


----------



## EngorgedW/Blood (Jun 5, 2013)

I would rank Pacquiao around top 40 because of his accomplishments, not resume. Going from a little malnurtured teenager from 112 to 150lbs is no easy task. Gotta give him that because of the simple fact that he did do it against top 10 guys. Not always quality top 10 guys, some were picked at the right time when they were on the slide and with some catchweights here and there. Beating Barrera, going 42 rounds with Marquez, Draw with undefeated and dangerous Bradley, beat Cotto, knocked out Hatton in 2, made Clottey go into hiding mode for 12 rounds. You can't deny Pacquiao is probably a top 40 ATG. I would easily have 2008-2010 Pacquiao beating some one like JCC Sr at 140, and JCC I see is regarded as top 25-30 ATG.


----------



## DobyZhee (May 19, 2013)

60...

all though pac is #2 on impact around the world..


----------



## MGS (Jun 14, 2013)

MVC said:


> Actually you are wrong. When Bert Sugar re-evaluated his list in 2011 (Ultimate list of Boxers), he had his list very similar to what he had in the past (The list I posted).


----------



## DOM5153 (May 16, 2013)

Between 50-30 sounds about right for Pacquiao, personally i'd have him higher than Floyd, but not by much at all.


----------



## bjl12 (Jun 5, 2013)

pacquiao is juiced to the gills


----------



## Brnxhands (Jun 11, 2013)

The people saying no please name the 80 fighters better than him.


----------



## Boxed Ears (Jun 13, 2012)

JMP said:


> Mira, Hussein, 3K Battery, Fahprakorb, and Rakkiatgym you moron.


Also, Mosley, the man in your avatar. But I mean who did he beat that wasn't old, weight-drained or an Asiobum. Tee hee!


----------



## ATrillionaire (Jun 11, 2013)

Having Pac ahead of Floyd is the real trolling. smh


----------



## bald_head_slick (May 23, 2013)

Bogotazo said:


> Dude, the thread is about the new guard failing to beat the older greats and take over. If you think Pac is not an ATG, he's part of the old guard, so regardless, it's not relevant to the thread. You are the tiny minority that thinks Pac is not an ATG. When you have opinions like that, it's best not to plug them into threads where it is not at issue.


I understand this. Bradley arguably beat Pac. Marquez sparked Pac. Bradley definitively beat Marquez confirming his status as the new guard. My point is that Pac was never part of any guard other than a guard fabricated by media.

Nice passive aggressive jab. So disagreeing with Dan Rafael means I should shut up? :lol: If you somehow believe that agreeing with a bunch of know nothings somehow makes one enlightened fine by me. History has shown who's opinion was well grounded and who's wasn't.



Bogotazo said:


> Jones beat a greener much less accomplished Barrera and didn't go on to beat other ATG's and HOFers in multiple weight classes. Raheem didn't go on to beat other ATG's and HOFers in multiple weight classes. Not every loss is a torch passing.
> 
> Not please stop. This thread is not about Pacquiao and his status as a great, which was used only as an example among many others, is not relevant. Please stop.


Greener? WTH? You call a fighter that is 43-0 green? Much less accomplished? You call facing him while 43-2 yourself nothing? Moving weight classes is far overrated. Especially when you are as conveniently matched as Pac was and is to this day! This is an informative window on how you and Boxing fans like you are forming their opinions.

Pac beat NAMES not prime fighters. It is also disputable whether or not Pac did this without the aid of PEDs due to his test dodging and lack of testing. So to this point you are right. Not every loss is a torch passing. Pac didn't get the torch from anyone he beat as they were all recently destroyed, beaten, or drained lifeless.

I will stop as it doesn't seem that your opinions are based on actual Boxing. Next time, be sure to level your criticism at the guy who won't support his opinion with BOXING related facts. I am done man.


----------



## bald_head_slick (May 23, 2013)

Bogotazo said:


> Stop with the goddamn paragraphs about your Pacfraud Manifesto. Do not post in here again about this crap.


Manifesto? You mean supporting my points? By crap you mean facts? I am done man. I already said so. I have been posting about the thread topic all along. It was YOU who felt it necessary to flex.

Bradley has been smashing through the ranks and snatching torches from guys who were _*legitimately *_dominant in their divisions for years now. Guys like Witter, Holt, Campbell, and Abregu. Guys who some guys skipped right over in their alleged claim to the torch. Per the thread topic, the torch has been snatched by the torch snatcher Bradley. Disputed and now confirmed. Bradley holds the Top Rank/HBO torch at both 140 and 147. There is nothing left. The old era is over.

The only thing left for Bradley is to leave that talent desert and conquer GBP. I still have huge respect for JMM as he faced challenges not just guys who were stylistically convenient.


----------



## Illuminaughty (Aug 19, 2013)

bald_head_slick said:


> Pac has never has and never will hold the torch for Boxing. He was a media fabrication. A well matched imperial contender. I call Pacfraud a bum based on logical and reasoned BOXING based analysis.


 I can't believe you really believe this. many people thought he had a good chance to beat mayweather - more than anyone else and that may still be true. pacquiao and Floyd are the first 2 names I can think of who will be ATGf rom this era


----------



## bald_head_slick (May 23, 2013)

Illuminaughty said:


> I can't believe you really believe this. many people thought he had a good chance to beat mayweather - more than anyone else and that may still be true. pacquiao and Floyd are the first 2 names I can think of who will be ATGf rom this era


I can't believe you don't. How is it Pac can be out boxed multiple times and eventually stopped by slower, smaller, less adaptable Marquez, but in that same universe this would be impossible or even hard for Mayweather? Sure, Pac's speed, aggressiveness, and _potential _work rate may make it more interesting, but by all indicators Pac had as little chance as anyone else. Pac has spent his entire career ducking fast counter punchers or fast guys period. This is not by mistake.

Pac may be thought of in this regard, but it will be completely illegitimate. Any poll of where Pac stands matched up against any other group of prime ATGs or prime dominant HOFs, e.g., Sugar Ray Leonard, Tommy Hearns, Roberto Duran, Chavez, Camacho, Ray Robinson, Whittaker, Mosley, ODLH, Forrest, Trinidad, etc... quickly shows this. Who on that list does Pac beat overwhelmingly if they fought 100 times? Few would expect him to consistently beat anyone who is a HOF let alone an ATG.

Pac is damned good, but isn't a great of this era as nobody he has faced has qualified as a PRIME great. Pac is however a great contender and an amazingly entertaining fighter due to both his talents, style, great match making, and media hype. Mayweather is an ATG. Pac is a HOF.


----------



## Illuminaughty (Aug 19, 2013)

bald_head_slick said:


> I can't believe you don't. How is it Pac can be out boxed multiple times and eventually stopped by slower, smaller, less adaptable Marquez, but in that same universe this would be impossible or even hard for Mayweather? Sure, Pac's speed, aggressiveness, and _potential _work rate may make it more interesting, but by all indicators Pac had as little chance as anyone else. Pac has spent his entire career ducking fast counter punchers or fast guys period. This is not by mistake.
> 
> Pac may be thought of in this regard, but it will be completely illegitimate. Any poll of where Pac stands matched up against any other group of prime ATGs or prime dominant HOFs, e.g., Sugar Ray Leonard, Tommy Hearns, Roberto Duran, Chavez, Camacho, Ray Robinson, Whittaker, Mosley, ODLH, Forrest, Trinidad, etc... quickly shows this. Who on that list does Pac beat overwhelmingly if they fought 100 times? Few would expect him to consistently beat anyone who is a HOF let alone an ATG.
> 
> Pac is damned good, but isn't a great of this era as nobody he has faced has qualified as a PRIME great. Pac is however a great contender and an amazingly entertaining fighter due to both his talents, style, great match making, and media hype. Mayweather is an ATG. Pac is a HOF.


 "by all indicators", by it's the one fight that Floyd couldn't negotiate! everybody thought many pacquiao was a great fighter before he lost to marquez, why should that change because you think "all indicators" change that? he has achieved a lot in boxing, including beating marquez. it's not fair to pull him down now because he lost one fight


----------



## bald_head_slick (May 23, 2013)

Illuminaughty said:


> "by all indicators", by it's the one fight that Floyd couldn't negotiate! everybody thought many pacquiao was a great fighter before he lost to marquez, why should that change because you think "all indicators" change that? he has achieved a lot in boxing, including beating marquez. it's not fair to pull him down now because he lost one fight


Not for lack of trying. An undeserved 50/50 and a 14 day cut off were more generous terms than anyone has EVER gotten against Mayweather. Everyone else makes the fight with worse terms than Pac got. Hard to pin that on Mayweather.

Was he really good or great though? Exactly which indicator, i.e., opponent, performance, style, etc... lead you to believe that he was the one that Mayweather was afraid to face?

Yes, Pac has achieved a lot. He has a career that any fighter should be proud of. That is not in dispute. What is in dispute is the value of his record after the second Marquez win. IMHO, it dos not qualify him as an ATG.

I also would never dare to pull him down because of one fight. I am only putting his legacy in rational perspective. Marquez is a great fighter. Pac was dominating that fight. No shame in that loss. I only use Marquez' style as a counter puncher, performance against Mayweather, ring IQ, adaptability, speed, strength, footwork, defense, etc... as a measuring stick to rate where Pac lands in terms of both chances to defeat Mayweather and qualifications to be an ATG or even era great against the likes of other high quality counter punchers or guys who could fight well defensively, i.e., Leonard, Whittaker, Forrest, Randall, Jones, Bradley, etc...


----------



## Illuminaughty (Aug 19, 2013)

bald_head_slick said:


> Not for lack of trying. An undeserved 50/50 and a 14 day cut off were more generous terms than anyone has EVER gotten against Mayweather. Everyone else makes the fight with worse terms than Pac got. Hard to pin that on Mayweather.
> 
> Was he really good or great though? Exactly which indicator, i.e., opponent, performance, style, etc... lead you to believe that he was the one that Mayweather was afraid to face?
> 
> ...


 it shouldn't matter what anyone else's terms were against Floyd mayweather, the manny pacquiao fight was different because it was the two best fighters of their era - the fight should have been about bragging rights instead of money. I think money and ego was just an excuse (from both sides) to not make the fight. it's really sad that this fight wasn't made about 4 years ago because it was what everyone wanted to see. I think Floyd would beat manny, but I also think it's bad form for anyone to dismiss manny just because he has lost his first meaningful fight in a long time


----------



## DobyZhee (May 19, 2013)

one knockout drops him 40 spots..


----------



## chongli (Jul 16, 2013)

bald_head_slick said:


> I understand this. Bradley arguably beat Pac. Marquez sparked Pac. Bradley definitively beat Marquez confirming his status as the new guard. My point is that Pac was never part of any guard other than a guard fabricated by media.
> 
> Nice passive aggressive jab. So disagreeing with Dan Rafael means I should shut up? :lol: If you somehow believe that agreeing with a bunch of know nothings somehow makes one enlightened fine by me. History has shown who's opinion was well grounded and who's wasn't.
> 
> ...


so the indication that the Mayweathers accusing Pac of PED's does not tell you something? :rofl

hold on, Pac, as the Mayweathers and YOU would say, has beaten NAMES but all are corpses due to catchweights and some or most are coming out of beatdowns. Pac was also exposed by JMM 3x in which Floyd toyed with. Easy fight for Floyd to take in my opinion.

Question now is, why is he still being accused of PED's? Because he was going thru drained fighters and leftovers? GTFO! :rofl


----------



## McKay (Jun 6, 2012)

There is so many fucking stupid posts on this thread I don't even know where to begin. I rank Floyd a fair bit higher than Pac, maybe by 10 to 15 places, but fuck me some of the Floyd fans have the most retarded logic. 

Floyd Fanboy: 'Pac beat Floyds leftovers'

Logical Person: 'What about Cotto?'

Floyd fanboy: 'HE FUCKING DRAGED COTTO DOWN BY 2 POUNDS MAN. FIGHT DOESN'T COUNT. PAC'S THE CATCHWEIGHT KING.'

Logical Person: 'But Cotto agreed to it, plus it's only 2 pounds. He weighed in at 146 in his previous fight against Clottey'

Floyd Fanboy: 'You've no idea man, 2 pounds is major'

Logical Person: 'So Alvarez would have been majorly affected by the 152 limit against Floyd?'

Floyd Fanboy: 'FUCK YOU PACTURD!'


----------



## JMP (Jun 3, 2013)

McKay said:


> There is so many fucking stupid posts on this thread I don't even know where to begin. I rank Floyd a fair bit higher than Pac, maybe by 10 to 15 places, but fuck me some of the Floyd fans have the most retarded logic.
> 
> Floyd Fanboy: 'Pac beat Floyds leftovers'
> 
> ...


Pacquiao fanboys and Mayweather fanboys go back-and-forth, but they don't realize they're essentially the exact same type of garbage worshipping tools just on the complete opposite end of the spectrum.


----------



## McKay (Jun 6, 2012)

JMP said:


> Pacquiao fanboys and Mayweather fanboys go back-and-forth, but they don't realize they're essentially the exact same type of garbage worshipping tools just on the complete opposite end of the spectrum.


Yeah I agree man, the worst Pac fans are just as bad as the worst Floyd fans. I was just relating to the retardation of this particular thread.


----------



## MAG1965 (Jun 4, 2013)

he is much higher than 80 or 90. Many guys on the list did not beat many great fighters and Manny did. I rate him ner 30 to 40. One lost does not change much for me.


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

McKay said:


> There is so many fucking stupid posts on this thread I don't even know where to begin. I rank Floyd a fair bit higher than Pac, maybe by 10 to 15 places, but fuck me some of the Floyd fans have the most retarded logic.
> 
> Floyd Fanboy: 'Pac beat Floyds leftovers'
> 
> ...


Cotto looked like shit vs Clottey and Manny still needed to drag him down, they even tried for 142 :verysad. Cotto's own promoter even put pressure on Cotto to put his title on the line for it when Cotto DIDNT want to.

That was shameless by Arum and Manny


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

chongli said:


> so the indication that the Mayweathers accusing Pac of PED's does not tell you something? :rofl
> 
> hold on, Pac, as the Mayweathers and YOU would say, has beaten NAMES but all are corpses due to catchweights and some or most are coming out of beatdowns. Pac was also exposed by JMM 3x in which Floyd toyed with. Easy fight for Floyd to take in my opinion.
> 
> Question now is, why is he still being accused of PED's? Because he was going thru drained fighters and leftovers? GTFO! :rofl


Because he turned down 50 million dollars over a drug test. It's not that hard to figure out.


----------



## McKay (Jun 6, 2012)

turbotime said:


> Cotto looked like shit vs Clottey and Manny still needed to drag him down, they even tried for 142 :verysad. Cotto's own promoter even put pressure on Cotto to put his title on the line for it when Cotto DIDNT want to.
> 
> That was shameless by Arum and Manny


I think it was the cut that caused him to look bad against Clottey, it was fucking nasty and he had blood running into his eye the full fight. He looked good up to when the cut occurred in round three, even scoring a knockdown (I know it wasn't a heavy knockdown), then he picked it up again in the last 3 rounds when the blood congealed and he wasn't getting so much running down his face. He looked poor in the middle part of the fight, except for one excellent round in either 6 or 7. I had him winning the Clottey fight 114113.

That's not to say he was at his best obviously, but the cut definitely played a part in him looking as bad as he did.


----------



## turbotime (May 12, 2013)

McKay said:


> I think it was the cut that caused him to look bad against Clottey, it was fucking nasty and he had blood running into his eye the full fight. He looked good up to when the cut occurred in round three, even scoring a knockdown (I know it wasn't a heavy knockdown), then he picked it up again in the last 3 rounds when the blood congealed and he wasn't getting so much running down his face. He looked poor in the middle part of the fight, except for one excellent round in either 6 or 7. I had him winning the Clottey fight 114113.
> 
> That's not to say he was at his best obviously, but the cut definitely played a part in him looking as bad as he did.


The cut was actually stopped midway through the fight, but even, the fight was still basically even up until the later rounds where Cotto barely pulled it out. There was blood sure, but it's a fight.

It was actually a pretty poor showing from both fighters, and lo and behold, were Manny's next consecutive opponents on Manny's terms :verysad


----------



## bald_head_slick (May 23, 2013)

Illuminaughty said:


> it shouldn't matter what anyone else's terms were against Floyd mayweather, the manny pacquiao fight was different because it was the two best fighters of their era - the fight should have been about bragging rights instead of money. I think money and ego was just an excuse (from both sides) to not make the fight. it's really sad that this fight wasn't made about 4 years ago because it was what everyone wanted to see. I think Floyd would beat manny, but I also think it's bad form for anyone to dismiss manny just because he has lost his first meaningful fight in a long time


Actually it should. It shows that not only did Mayweather want the fight, but he was willing to offer terms that were horrible for himself to get the fight.

Don't fool yourself. All prizefights are about money or the potential eventually for money. ALL of them.

I am not dismissing him because of the loss. I said indicators, i.e., opponents, opponent styles, height, reach, speed, footwork, Pac's style, ring IQ, etc... Basically given Pac's body of work and the fighters who gave him the most problems, Pac had and has little chance. Pac has avoided counter punchers his entire career other than Marquez. Marquez Boxed the hell out of him every time. Bradely Boxed the hell out of him. Mayweather would do the exact same if not worse. With that said I still think Pac is the most intriguing opponent at this point due to his speed, but that is on the level of a punchers chance.

Back to the thread topic though... Bradley took the torch from Pac then solidified his worthiness of the torch by beating the man who beat the man. Top Rank has been decimated.


----------



## sugarshane_24 (Apr 20, 2013)

bald_head_slick said:


> I understand this. Bradley arguably beat Pac. Marquez sparked Pac. Bradley definitively beat Marquez confirming his status as the new guard. My point is that Pac was never part of any guard other than a guard fabricated by media.
> 
> Pac didn't get the torch from anyone he beat as they were all recently destroyed, beaten, or drained lifeless.





bald_head_slick said:


> Bradley took the torch from Pac then solidified his worthiness of the torch by beating the man who beat the man. Top Rank has been decimated.


kindly clear this up for me bald, first you said pac was media fabrication and was never a guard, basically he was never a torch bearer to begin with right? then how did bradley took the torch from someone who never bear a torch at all? to be honest you sound like you are contradicting yourself here.


----------



## JeffJoiner (Jun 5, 2013)

All ATG and P4P lists are by their very nature entirely subjective. In a sport devoid of concrete statistics, the biases of the list creator are even easier to interject. So, this entire thread's premise is flawed.

Just come out and say "I have Manny lower than most people" and support your arguments.


----------



## bald_head_slick (May 23, 2013)

chongli said:


> so the indication that the Mayweathers accusing Pac of PED's does not tell you something? :rofl
> 
> hold on, Pac, as the Mayweathers and YOU would say, has beaten NAMES but all are corpses due to catchweights and some or most are coming out of beatdowns. Pac was also exposed by JMM 3x in which Floyd toyed with. Easy fight for Floyd to take in my opinion.
> 
> Question now is, why is he still being accused of PED's? Because he was going thru drained fighters and leftovers? GTFO! :rofl


No. That didn't tell me much. Pac's subsequent refusal to test told me something.

It is an easy fight to take. Just like a drug test is an easy test to take... if you are clean.

Nobody is accusing Pac of PEDs. Nobody has any clue if Pac or any other fighter is or was using PEDs. If a fighter wants to fight and is confident he is clean, he tests and fights. If he won't test he either doesn't want to fight or he isn't clean. This is really simple. Every fighter who wanted to fight Mayweather took the tests and fought. Only Pac didn't. And look who is testing now?


----------



## bald_head_slick (May 23, 2013)

sugarshane_24 said:


> kindly clear this up for me bald, first you said pac was media fabrication and was never a guard, basically he was never a torch bearer to begin with right? then how did bradley took the torch from someone who never bear a torch at all? to be honest you sound like you are contradicting yourself here.


Better question is what torch to do you think Pac bore? What exactly did Pac guard?


----------



## bald_head_slick (May 23, 2013)

JeffJoiner said:


> All ATG and P4P lists are by their very nature entirely subjective. In a sport devoid of concrete statistics, the biases of the list creator are even easier to interject. So, this entire thread's premise is flawed.
> 
> Just come out and say "I have Manny lower than most people" and support your arguments.


I hope I am fairly straightforward in that regard.

I don't think Manny is anywhere near as good as people think he is especially when you consider his toughest opponents and matching.

I don't think anyone could see Manny competing with the greats from the last 30 years let alone AT. Using his career as a reference, I would think many a solid contender would give Pac fits.


----------



## Mal (Aug 25, 2013)

bald_head_slick said:


> Better question is what torch to do you think Pac bore? What exactly did Pac guard?


Why would you say Bradley took the torch from MP if you don't think he had one to pass to begin with? Do you see that doesn't make any sense?


----------



## rjjfan (May 17, 2013)

BHS is like Oneshot when it comes to Pacquaio. atsch


----------



## Mal (Aug 25, 2013)

rjjfan said:


> BHS is like Oneshot when it comes to Pacquaio. atsch


I've noticed. He says stuff that no one in their right mind agrees with. calls MP a media creation, calls him a fraud. How freaking bitter can one uber-fan be?atsch


----------



## bald_head_slick (May 23, 2013)

Mal said:


> Why would you say Bradley took the torch from MP if you don't think he had one to pass to begin with? Do you see that doesn't make any sense?


Because others have presented Pac as a torch bearer. If this is the case, which I don't believe it is, Bradley took the torch and solidified his hold on it by beating JMM.

I presented why I disagreed. If anyone had the torch it was Bradley. Bradley reigned over LWW. Nobody in their right mind had post Mayweather Hatton beating Bradley. Per his MO, Pac fought the meaningless fight against the lesser opponent.

Either way you look at it, i.e,. Pac being a torch bearer or Pac never having the torch and just a hot name, per the original concept of the thread, Bradley satisfied all criteria of snatching the torch.


----------



## JeffJoiner (Jun 5, 2013)

bald_head_slick said:


> I hope I am fairly straightforward in that regard.
> 
> I don't think Manny is anywhere near as good as people think he is especially when you consider his toughest opponents and matching.
> 
> I don't think anyone could see Manny competing with the greats from the last 30 years let alone AT. Using his career as a reference, I would think many a solid contender would give Pac fits.


I can respect that. I have some guys higher and others lower than the mainstream.


----------



## bald_head_slick (May 23, 2013)

rjjfan said:


> BHS is like Oneshot when it comes to Pacquaio. atsch


I have no idea who that is.

I am quite clear on why I think Pac isn't who people think he is.

His best wins are Morales, who was beaten by Raheem. Barrera who was schooled by Junior Jones twice. Diaz who was sparked faster by Holt. ODLH who was a damned skeleton. Hatton who was in no way even a top contender at LWW. Cotto who was destroyed by Margarito. Mosley who was shot to hell. Margarito who was suspended and couldn't get a legit license.

In every case you see Pac repeatedly taking on the loser rather than the winner or avoiding the dominant man in a division. That is fine, but don't pretend that he is a world beater.


----------



## Mal (Aug 25, 2013)

bald_head_slick said:


> Because others have presented Pac as a torch bearer. If this is the case, which I don't believe it is, Bradley took the torch and solidified his hold on it by beating JMM.
> 
> I presented why I disagreed. If anyone had the torch it was Bradley. Bradley reigned over LWW. Nobody in their right mind had post Mayweather Hatton beating Bradley. Per his MO, Pac fought the meaningless fight against the lesser opponent.
> 
> Either way you look at it, i.e,. Pac being a torch bearer or Pac never having the torch and just a hot name, per the original concept of the thread, Bradley satisfied all criteria of snatching the torch.


There was no torch passing from MP to TB anymore than there was from ODLH to Shane Mosley. And there's been no torch passing from ANYONE since DLH passed it to MP and FMjr. Merely beating a guy doesn't mean anything was passed.


----------



## bald_head_slick (May 23, 2013)

Mal said:


> I've noticed. He says stuff that no one in their right mind agrees with. calls MP a media creation, calls him a fraud. How freaking bitter can one uber-fan be?atsch


No one in their right mind agrees with? WTF? Where do you get this crap?

Especially when your stupid ass has yet to even post ANY opinion or support for said opinion?

Unlike you and the idiots who you agree with, I actually understand what I am seeing. A guy doesn't get out Boxed by the likes of Morales and JMM then expect to be called an ATG. Pac would get decimated by every single above average athletic Pure Boxer with decent pop over the last 30 years! Pac is so protected it isn't funny.

Keep agreeing with Dan Rafael. It makes you look "smart". :thumbsup


----------



## Mal (Aug 25, 2013)

bald_head_slick said:


> No one in their right mind agrees with? WTF? Where do you get this crap?
> 
> Especially when your stupid ass has yet to even post ANY opinion or support for said opinion?
> 
> ...


Yes, no one in their right mind calls MP a media creation or fraud. Yet you do it. If you can find some respected boxing anaylist or trainer or another boxer who has called MP a fraud, please provide something. This post from you is pure garbage, and again, no one would agree with, except a few other posters here. You're a total joke. And more proof as to how ridiculous you are, using MP getting outboxed my Erik Morales and JMM as some type of proof how bad he is, again, shows you to be nothing but a FMjr bitch.

Dan Rafael? atsch I don't even read his stuff. See, this is more of your adding your own stuff to others posts that I talked about. Dolt...


----------



## bald_head_slick (May 23, 2013)

Mal said:


> There was no torch passing from MP to TB anymore than there was from ODLH to Shane Mosley. And there's been no torch passing from ANYONE since DLH passed it to MP and FMjr. Merely beating a guy doesn't mean anything was passed.


Sure, to a fan like you who feels popularity matters more than kicking ass and taking names.

TB is the man sitting atop Top Rank and HBO. That spot was previously filled by MP and JMM. He became the man by schooling both of them using Boxing skill. No sane fan watched those fights and thinks either man does better in a rematch. Rematches favor skill. The torch is passed.

Now it is up to Top Rank and HBO to make sure that Bradley's torch shines bright enough to attract moths. I doubt they will do what they need to do.


----------



## Mal (Aug 25, 2013)

bald_head_slick said:


> Sure, to a fan like you who feels popularity matters more than kicking ass and taking names.
> 
> TB is the man sitting atop Top Rank and HBO. That spot was previously filled by MP and JMM. He became the man by schooling both of them using Boxing skill. No sane fan watched those fights and thinks either man does better in a rematch. Rematches favor skill. The torch is passed.
> 
> Now it is up to Top Rank and HBO to make sure that Bradley's torch shines bright enough to attract moths. I doubt they will do what they need to do.


Do you even understand what "Torch Passing" means? I was clearly talking about the all of boxing, not who's on top of HBO. atsch My god man, you are dumber then I even thought.
Here's what i was referring to, even though it SHOULD be obvious. Once upon a time, a few decades ago, there was a man named SLR that was on top of the boxing world. He was the first guy to recapture the imagination of the a sport since Ali. After him along came Mike Tyson, and to a lesser extent, Evender Holyfield. And then shortly after ODLH. Those guys carried the sports until it was mainly ODLH doing it. And before ODLH retired, he pretty much gave it up to two men, MP and FMjr, whose popularity skyrocketed. And as I said, there isn't anyone on the radar who has both the mainstream appeal and ring work to carry it when they are gone.

Got that? For fuck's sake you are terrible... atsch


----------



## bald_head_slick (May 23, 2013)

Mal said:


> Yes, no one in their right mind calls MP a media creation or fraud. Yet you do it. If you can find some respected boxing anaylist or trainer or another boxer who has called MP a fraud, please provide something. This post from you is pure garbage, and again, no one would agree with, except a few other posters here. You're a total joke. And more proof as to how ridiculous you are, using MP getting outboxed my Erik Morales and JMM as some type of proof how bad he is, again, shows you to be nothing but a FMjr bitch.
> 
> Dan Rafael? atsch I don't even read his stuff. See, this is more of your adding your own stuff to others posts that I talked about. Dolt...


I do it and low and behold he is SPARKED. Now, the same FOTD who people call an ATG, if fighting Rios in China?!?! The loser. Not a true WW. Not even a well worn LWW. A completely meaningless match. This is the FOTD? An ATG? They don't even try to convince anyone that Pac is competitive and you fanboys defend this? Could we get Judah, Lundy, or Provodnikov?

Who is a "respected" Boxing analyst? Some guy who never Boxed in his life, but watched a lot and likes writing? Some fighter clinging to his meal ticket working for a network who is in bed with the fighter being analyzed? The coach looking for clients? You don't see the conflict of interest? I don't knock any of their hustle, but you can piss off. Dominant fighters beat any and all comers regardless of style. Pac beats offensive guys with poor defense and struggles mightily with even guys who turn to Pure Boxing as a Plan B.

My post is garbage because you don't like it? The truth hurts.

I used that because Morales was also outboxed the fight BEFORE he fought Pac! Pac fought the LOSER! What part of Boxing is that? Barrera was out boxed TWICE.

So understanding that getting out boxed by a slower smaller less athletically gifted Boxer probably means a bigger faster more defensively sound Boxer will probably do the same or WORSE makes me a FMJ bitch? :lol: So in essence you would say that a guy who got out boxed by say Adamek has just as much chance as anyone else of beating Wlad? This is the type of stupidity that makes sense in your mind. :rofl


----------



## Mal (Aug 25, 2013)

bald_head_slick said:


> I do it and low and behold he is SPARKED. Now, the same FOTD who people call an ATG, if fighting Rios in China?!?! The loser. Not a true WW. Not even a well worn LWW. A completely meaningless match. This is the FOTD? An ATG? They don't even try to convince anyone that Pac is competitive and you fanboys defend this? Could we get Judah, Lundy, or Provodnikov?
> 
> Who is a "respected" Boxing analyst? Some guy who never Boxed in his life, but watched a lot and likes writing? Some fighter clinging to his meal ticket working for a network who is in bed with the fighter being analyzed? The coach looking for clients? You don't see the conflict of interest? I don't knock any of their hustle, but you can piss off. Dominant fighters beat any and all comers regardless of style. Pac beats offensive guys with poor defense and struggles mightily with even guys who turn to Pure Boxing as a Plan B.
> 
> ...


My god...you are one bitter ass loser with no sense of reality.


----------



## bald_head_slick (May 23, 2013)

Mal said:


> Do you even understand what "Torch Passing" means? I was clearly talking about the all of boxing, not who's on top of HBO. atsch My god man, you are dumber then I even thought.
> Here's what i was referring to, even though it SHOULD be obvious. Once upon a time, a few decades ago, there was a man named SLR that was on top of the boxing world. He was the first guy to recapture the imagination of the a sport since Ali. After him along came Mike Tyson, and to a lesser extent, Evender Holyfield. And then shortly after ODLH. Those guys carried the sports until it was mainly ODLH doing it. And before ODLH retired, he pretty much gave it up to two men, MP and FMjr, whose popularity skyrocketed. And as I said, there isn't anyone on the radar who has both the mainstream appeal and ring work to carry it when they are gone.
> 
> Got that? For fuck's sake you are terrible... atsch


:lol: This nonsense... I don't think you understand what torch passing means nor the current state of Boxing.

If this firewall between HBO/Top Rank and Showtime/GBP persists there must be two torches as no man has the right to claim dominance over the sport objectively. The man holding the torch is obviously FMJ. In order to set up the fight for someone to take the torch there has to be a "culling" of contenders to leave only the fittest challenger. Bradley has established himself as the man holding the torch at Top Rank/HBO. The only problem is that his promoter, network, and the media refuse to praise him for the stellar athlete and human being he seems to be.

Right, right... Why did they capture the imagination of the sport? Whether surrounded by fame or infamy, it was because they beat everyone who was anyone! ODLH gave up the torch to FMJ. After that, every fighter who was the "Mayweather solution" became the next hot thing. Pac included. As I stated earlier, Pac is a complete media fabrication. His Boxing skills were never on the level that he could compete with Mayweather. Arum just played the dodging to make Pac into a larger name. Pac never held a torch.

Pac's "mainstream appeal" is also a media fabrication as the guy can't even speak English. I don't knock him for this, but the same BS is used as reasoning that Cuban fighters can't sell fights. It is nonsense. The media for whatever reason chooses not to promote guys. A cursory examination of Pac's personal life reveals all sorts of crazy from illegitmate unclaimed unsupported children, womanizing, to even attempted political assasinations. For some reason the media and Pac fanboys seem to ignore this while focusing on negatives in the lives of other fighters.

Bradley has the skill and the clean cut persona to carry the torch if and when he is able to fight and beat mayweather. Going into this the guy was a true to life "Good Guy". The problem is that the media trolls refuse to write the BS glowing stories about him that they did about Pacfraud.

I don't even think you get what you are saying. I am "terrible" because I pop your BS bubble.


----------



## bald_head_slick (May 23, 2013)

Mal said:


> My god...you are one bitter ass loser with no sense of reality.


What am I bitter about?

Pac getting sparked and fighting pointless fights in China?

Exactly what?

:lol:


----------



## Mal (Aug 25, 2013)

bald_head_slick said:


> :lol: This nonsense... I don't think you understand what torch passing means nor the current state of Boxing.
> 
> If this firewall between HBO/Top Rank and Showtime/GBP persists there must be two torches as no man has the right to claim dominance over the sport objectively. The man holding the torch is obviously FMJ. In order to set up the fight for someone to take the torch there has to be a "culling" of contenders to leave only the fittest challenger. Bradley has established himself as the man holding the torch at Top Rank/HBO. The only problem is that his promoter, network, and the media refuse to praise him for the stellar athlete and human being he seems to be.
> 
> ...


atsch This just shows you have no clue about what I wrote, even though I was pretty clear.


----------



## Mal (Aug 25, 2013)

bald_head_slick said:


> What am I bitter about?
> 
> Pac getting sparked and fighting pointless fights in China?
> 
> ...


Give it a rest BHS. You are one bitter poster when it comes to MP. Like i said, no one in their right mind would agree with the crap you post. Just pretend you "won" and move on to embarrassing yourself with your next post.


----------



## bald_head_slick (May 23, 2013)

Mal said:


> atsch This just shows you have no clue about what I wrote, even though I was pretty clear.


It shows you have no clue about what you are writing about. 


Mal said:


> Do you even understand what "Torch Passing" means? I was clearly talking about the _*all of boxing*_, not who's on top of HBO. atsch My god man, you are dumber then I even thought.


So you are clearly talking about ALL of Boxing not various factions of fans, networks, etc... right? OK. There is only one torch bearer.



Mal said:


> And then shortly after ODLH. Those guys carried the sports until it was mainly ODLH doing it. And before ODLH retired, he pretty much gave it up to two men, MP and FMjr, whose popularity skyrocketed. And as I said, there isn't anyone on the radar who has both the mainstream appeal and ring work to carry it when they are gone.


Hold up. Now you say ODLH passed the torch to TWO men? WTF? So when it comes to Pac multiple fan factions, networks, promotional outfits now are legitimate holders of torches? This is especially telling when many of the same factions you state "had the torch" are the same factions now being dominated by Bradley. The same Bradley who is now fighting big fights making big money.

I guess your real point is, Bradley can't share or have a sub- torch, but Pac can? Nice. Truth is, Pac's entire fame was built on him being a "Mayweather Solution". Now that everyone knows the truth, Pac has faded back into the pack... where he belongs.:deal


----------



## bald_head_slick (May 23, 2013)

Mal said:


> Give it a rest BHS. You are one bitter poster when it comes to MP. Like i said, no one in their right mind would agree with the crap you post. Just pretend you "won" and move on to embarrassing yourself with your next post.


What am I bitter about? Everything I said panned out! :lol:


----------



## Illuminaughty (Aug 19, 2013)

bald_head_slick said:


> Actually it should. It shows that not only did Mayweather want the fight, but he was willing to offer terms that were horrible for himself to get the fight.
> 
> Don't fool yourself. All prizefights are about money or the potential eventually for money. ALL of them.
> 
> ...


 I still think both Floyd and many are equally to blame for the fight not being made. both of them would have made an awful lot of money from this fight, so I think ego was the main culprit


----------



## MGS (Jun 14, 2013)

i remember this thread. fucking mvc referencing books hes clearly never read :lol:


----------



## bald_head_slick (May 23, 2013)

Illuminaughty said:


> I still think both Floyd and many are equally to blame for the fight not being made. both of them would have made an awful lot of money from this fight, so I think ego was the main culprit


You are free to think as you wish. Mayweather was making the most then and is still making this kind of money. The onus really wasn't on him to make the fight.

Pac wasn't making big bucks then. Pac isn't now. Had Pac wanted to make 40 million in a single fight or more he would have made that fight. Pac didn't want to. He fought Marquez instead for far less. Horribly calculation.


----------



## Vysotsky (Jun 6, 2013)

McGrain and the ESB Classic placed him at #48 P4P all time on the top 100 list. Here are the guys around him, i'd place him above Floyd.

40 - Jose Napoles
41 - Alexis Arguello
42 - Michael Spinks
43 - Tommy Loughran
44 - Thomas Hearns
45 - Jimmy Bivins
46 - Ike Williams
47 - Floyd Mayweather
48 - Manny Pacquiao
49 - Tommy Ryan
50 - Jack Dillon
51 - Bernard Hopkins
52 - Carlos Ortiz
53 - Fighting Harada
54 - Ruben Olivares
55 - Evander Holyfield
56 - Young Corbett III
57 - Mike Gibbons
58 - Ted Kid Lewis


----------



## Illuminaughty (Aug 19, 2013)

bald_head_slick said:


> You are free to think as you wish. Mayweather was making the most then and is still making this kind of money. The onus really wasn't on him to make the fight.
> 
> Pac wasn't making big bucks then. Pac isn't now. Had Pac wanted to make 40 million in a single fight or more he would have made that fight. Pac didn't want to. He fought Marquez instead for far less. Horribly calculation.


 the onus should have been on both of them to make the fight, I think. that fight would have made one of them the best fighter of his generation. they both would have got richer making the fight than not making it


----------



## FelixTrinidad (Jun 3, 2013)

Vysotsky said:


> McGrain and the ESB Classic placed him at #48 P4P all time on the top 100 list. Here are the guys around him, i'd place him above Floyd.
> 
> 40 - Jose Napoles
> 41 - Alexis Arguello
> ...


According to certain posters.....mcgrain..esb classic posters..99% of the boxing world...are all retards for calling pac an atg...... hes clearly a mirage and media fabrication


----------



## Mr. Brain (Jun 4, 2013)

MVC said:


> Note: This is not a troll thread. There are MANY people besides me who don't have Pac in the top 50. So why is this so ludicrous?
> 
> When Bert Sugar was alive, he had Pac nowhere near the top 50. Doug Fischer is another who share the same opinion.
> 
> ...


Manny spent a lot of time fighting Floyd's retreads. He could never dominate JMM (as Floyd and Timmy did). Once he finally fought a hungry undefeated guy he got beat.


----------



## TBooze (Dec 9, 2012)

The last time I did a top 100 (Jan 2011) he was at #33, up from #100 in 2007. Looking at it, if I did another list today he would go down the list slightly.


----------



## Illuminaughty (Aug 19, 2013)

TBooze said:


> The last time I did a top 100 (Jan 2011) he was at #33, up from #100 in 2007. Looking at it, if I did another list today he would go down the list slightly.


 do you think that will be different when people look at the end of his career? when tarver beat roy jones I think it had more to do with roy coming back down from heavyweight and 'hitting his wall'. it seems like boxers who rely on their aggression and speed end up falling from grace faster than boxers with good defensive skills


----------



## Eurosdonthavesouls (Oct 31, 2013)

Manny is very over rated I broke his 140 pound and over resume and I had a issue with every single one, plus he avoided and used catch weights and he gets credit for moving up so much but he was only 16 when he started I view him as a natural feather weight not a light flyweight as most casuals will claim. Really he's an ATG but he's not what stupid fans think.


----------



## TBooze (Dec 9, 2012)

Illuminaughty said:


> do you think that will be different when people look at the end of his career? when tarver beat roy jones I think it had more to do with roy coming back down from heavyweight and 'hitting his wall'. it seems like boxers who rely on their aggression and speed end up falling from grace faster than boxers with good defensive skills


I really try and avoid rating 'active' fighters. But clearly the likes of Manny and Lil Floyd are top 100 fighters, even if they never win another fight. I do not think Manny will jump massively one way or another in my opinion when I come to do my 2015 list, I try my best to avoid that. The exception of course was Pacman between 2007 and 2011, but as mentioned they look like being his peak years, so there was enough 'evidence' to justify the move.

You mention Jones; I am pretty pleased that my ranking of him stayed relatively stable despite his form at the time (#35 in 2003, #46 in 2007 and #38 in 2011), so hopefully Pacquiao's ranking will be as stable.


----------



## Illuminaughty (Aug 19, 2013)

TBooze said:


> I really try and avoid rating 'active' fighters. But clearly the likes of Manny and Lil Floyd are top 100 fighters, even if they never win another fight. I do not think Manny will jump massively one way or another in my opinion when I come to do my 2015 list, I try my best to avoid that. The exception of course was Pacman between 2007 and 2011, but as mentioned they look like being his peak years, so there was enough 'evidence' to justify the move.
> 
> You mention Jones; I am pretty pleased that my ranking of him stayed relatively stable despite his form at the time (#35 in 2003, #46 in 2007 and #38 in 2011), so hopefully Pacquiao's ranking will be as stable.


 wise words  I also agree that active fighters can be ranked differently (and maybe more accurately) in hindsight


----------



## TBooze (Dec 9, 2012)

Illuminaughty said:


> wise words  I also agree that active fighters can be ranked differently (and maybe more accurately) in hindsight


Yes, that should be so, but it is nice if you were around in both periods. Using Jones as an example, his victory in the first Hopkins fight is clearly now one of his career highlights, but at the time it was considered 'merely' a good win against a solid fighter who some thought had the power to worry Roy. In the same way as during that period his destruction of Thomas Tate at the time was considered awesome, what with Tate going the distance with Julian Jackson, but now a days is considered a 'footnote' in his career. Hindsight is 20/20, but if you are in the period you can also remember things that history forgets or ignores.


----------



## Illuminaughty (Aug 19, 2013)

TBooze said:


> . Hindsight is 20/20, but if you are in the period you can also remember things that history forgets or ignores.


 I think my father would agree with you. he was a big fan of roy jones, but also Bernard Hopkins. he calls the Bernard Hopkins win over felix Trinidad as one of the greatest masterclasses in boxing


----------

