Current All Time Or Near Greats?

[Russell]

Originally Posted by TIGEREDGE

marquez
Cristian Mijares
Rafael Marquez (great puncher)
Israel Vasqeuz
Joel Casamayor has a shout
margarito looks promising
if cotto can avenge that loss he will go a long way towrds greatness

Completely agreed on Casamayor.

Great resume.

[Hatesrats]

Manny Pacquiao
Rafael Marquez
Juan Manuel Marquez
Wlad Klitschko
Joe Calzaghe
Ricky Hatton
Zab Judah
Antonio Margarito
Miguel Cotto
Floyd Mayweather jr.
Diego Corrales
just a couple off the dome....

[janitor]

Originally Posted by Sweet Pea

That's one way to put it. I personally think head to head is his absolute worst category for judging him in comparison to the other greats, because I don't see many ATG Feathers he'd beat in their prime.

As for his resume, I've been through it enough I think, he beat 3 of the best Feathers of his generation, most in controversial circumstances. Morales outboxed him cleanly in their first fight while he was already on the slide. He beat Morales in the rematches, by which time he was finished already, as he showed in other matches against the likes of Raheem. Barrera I was his best win, no matter how shitty Barrera looked, because he was near his prime at least. Both of the Marquez fights are highly controversial. Otherwise, his status is more based on titles and weight jumping instead of quality wins. Many Feathers have better resumes, and I'd pick most great Feathers to beat him head to head. Saldivar was a better Featherweight.

How many fighters through history have established themselves as the lineal champion at flyweight and featherweight or even flyweight and bantemweight?

If there was a historic fighter who atained Paquiaos curent record then fell under a bus nobody would dispute their all time great status or even question it.

[Mantequilla]

His flyweight belt is tarnished by him looking so poor in winning it and subsequently losing to journeymen in my opinion.

[Sweet Pea]

Originally Posted by janitor

How many fighters through history have established themselves as the lineal champion at flyweight and featherweight or even flyweight and bantemweight?

If there was a historic fighter who atained Paquiaos curent record then fell under a bus nobody would dispute their all time great status or even question it.

Harada achieved similar things, but in much more impressive fashion at the lower weights instead of the higher weights, against better opposition, in more convincing fashion.

And as Mantequilla said, his Flyweight title really means little. He was a mediocre Flyweight all in all, only made to be so by his power and speed. His win over Sasakul was pretty fluky IMO, and he showed his status at Flyweight against Singsurat in an embarassing blow-out loss.

I guess what it comes down to is, I also give credence to what goes on inside the ring when judging a boxer's greatness rather than just what they officially accomplished on paper.

[TBooze]

Originally Posted by SuzieQ49

On the Right road? he has already beaten great hall of fame fighters and and has already established a great resume and he isnt even 30 yet! i would say hes already there, but if he wants to go down as a top 10-20 p4p great throughout history, then he will have to move up in weight and beat some very good fighters as he gets older. then he will be a lock for top 15 p4p all time.

Well the only active borderline great is Jones Jr... when did he fight him? And even if we are going as low as the Boxing Hall of Fame, who has he beaten who is a member?

[Loewe]

Originally Posted by Hatesrats

Manny Pacquiao
Rafael Marquez
Juan Manuel Marquez
Wlad Klitschko
Joe Calzaghe
Ricky Hatton
Zab Judah
Antonio Margarito
Miguel Cotto
Floyd Mayweather jr.
Diego Corrales
just a couple off the dome....

None of these guys with the exception of Pac and PBF could be considered great right now. But a few have a chance of becoming one, Wlad, JMM, Calzaghe.

From the older guys i think RJJ, Hopkins, DLH and Toney already have a cemented legacy as atg - so all of them not up there with the big boys.

[janitor]

[quote]

Originally Posted by Sweet Pea

Harada achieved similar things,

Did he though?

There is a huge difference between making the transition from flyweight-bantemweight, and making the transition from flyweight-featherweight, let alone lightweight.

Also if you have to invoke the name of fighting Harada to find an unfavourable comparison for their record then that is a prety high compliment.

And as Mantequilla said, his Flyweight title really means little.

On the contrary.

It means that he was able to physicaly make the flyweight limit and win at the highest level at that weight, whatever he later became.

It means that he was the best flyweight on the planet.

I think that this combined with his wins at higher weights at world level puts his greatness beyond question.

[Mantequilla]

He wasn't the best Flyweight on the planet though.

Also keep in mind Harada really should have won the featherweight title.

I do think Pac is one of better choices from the initial options.

[Sweet Pea]

Originally Posted by janitor

Did he though?

There is a huge difference between making the transition from flyweight-bantemweight, and making the transition from flyweight-featherweight, let alone lightweight.

Also if you have to invoke the name of fighting Harada to find an unfavourable comparison for their record then that is a prety high compliment.

Harada went from Flyweight to Featherweight though, and should've won titles at all 3. He was also far more impressive and overall skilled at Fly and Bantam than Pacquiao. Much naturally smaller fighter as well, Pacquiao was simply young and undeveloped at lower weights.

Yes, the fact that I had to bring up Harada shows that Pacquiao rates as a great, just not as high as the likes of Harada and other guys I'm missing likely.

On the contrary.

It means that he was able to physicaly make the flyweight limit and win at the highest level at that weight, whatever he later became.

It means that he was the best flyweight on the planet.

We've discussed this. He was never the best Flyweight on the planet, in the same way a guy like Braddock or Baldomir were never the best HW's or WW's on the planet. He was technically pretty awful at Flyweight, and was being schooled prior to catching Sasakul in the 8th I think it was. All he had was his power and speed. A guy like Mark Johnson would've beat him up badly and KO'd him.

I think that this combined with his wins at higher weights at world level puts his greatness beyond question.

If you re-read my initial post, you'll see that my main criticism of him is in head to head circumstances, by which I don't think he'd match up well with many great Feathers in their prime. Or really any weight he fought.

Based on resume, I was just stating that his is a tad overrated, not lacking in greatness. The fact that he has been able to acomplish so much and fight at such a high level with his limited technical skills says a lot about him. I'd say he's a great fighter. Among current fighters in or around their prime, he's the best choice right now probably.

[janitor]

[quote]

Originally Posted by Sweet Pea

Harada went from Flyweight to Featherweight though, and should've won titles at all 3. He was also far more impressive and overall skilled at Fly and Bantam than Pacquiao. Much naturally smaller fighter as well, Pacquiao was simply young and undeveloped at lower weights.

Yes, the fact that I had to bring up Harada shows that Pacquiao rates as a great, just not as high as the likes of Harada and other guys I'm missing likely.

I agree that Harada ranks higher but I also see certain historical paralels.

Both won the title at flyweight while 19/20, and lets face it winning any lineal title at that age is an incredible achievment.

Both went on to win titles or establish lineage at Bantem and Feather beating pound for pound greats of the day.

I think that Paquiao will rank higher than any fighter active now on a future pound for pound list 50 years down the line.

We've discussed this. He was never the best Flyweight on the planet, in the same way a guy like Braddock or Baldomir were never the best HW's or WW's on the planet.

This might be the case but baging a lineal title at such an embryonic stage of his development and so far removed from his peak weight is a feat indicative of greatness in itself.

If you re-read my initial post, you'll see that my main criticism of him is in head to head circumstances, by which I don't think he'd match up well with many great Feathers in their prime. Or really any weight he fought.

Perhaps, but head to head is speculative while resume is fact.

As a student of boxing history I have to look at his paper resume which is what many fighters from the pre film era are evaluated by.