How could one possibly say Pacquaio resume is better than Mayweather

I think Mayweathers' is better, but I acknowledge it as being close and could potentially see how would could rate Pacs' better.

It is the blind Pac fans who refuse to acknowledge it as being close which give their fan base a bad name. Honestly, you are kind of the same way right now. Pac has a great resume. Floyd has a great resume. Everything else is personal preference/value.

One thing I do find strange is that Floyd has been P4P top 10 since 1998, #1 or 2 for 6 years. Pacquiao didn't land in the P4P top 10 until 5 years after Floyd did, in 2003. People refuse to see this as having any kind of impact...

 

I don't know, common sense?

 

Manny has better names on his resume.

 

Pacquiao being better than Mayweather, and Pacquiao haveing a better RESUME than Mayweather are completely different concepts. . .

Pacquiao's resume is better than Floyd's. . . Mainly because of these three names: Morales TWO TIMES, MAB TWO TIMES, and Marquez TWO TIMES.

 

Mainly because it is. :conf

 

:verysad

 

It is better. How can one argue otherwise is what Im wondering. That being said, may is a better fighter imo

 

Morales ,Barrera and Marquez !

Nuff said !!

 

Floyd is better in a H2H sense. That's almost irrefutable.

The best wins on Mayweather's resume are probably Diego Corrales (a very impressive win he deserves credit for), and a faded DLH (close but clear 7-5, 8-4 type decision). He deserves credit for a clear win in the rematch versus Castillo too. I'd say those are his three best wins.

Pacquiao, meanwhile, killed a prime Barrera, which is the best win on either fighter's resume. He also beat Morales twice, and scored debatable wins over Marquez (if you want to say Marquez beat Pacquiao, well, you can't try and say Mayweather beat Castillo the first time either.)

As for their common opponents, the DLH Mayweather fought, while far past his best, was still substantially better than the zombie Pac fought. Edge to Mayweather. As for Mosley, while both versions of Mosley that Pac/Mayweather fought sucked and were old and basically the same, Mayweather still decided to fight him first (even if both Mayweather and Pacquiao wanted no part of him in 2009 after he smashed Margarito, both men apparently deciding it would be sound policy to wait around and hope he would get older after a year. Which he did.) So Mayweather deserves a little more credit than Pacquiao for fighting Mosley and DLH.

Hatton, meanwhile, is a bit different. Hatton was always at his best at 140, where Pacquiao annihilated him, and not nearly as good at 147, where Mayweather broke him down and stopped him late. Just considering the weight, and the fact that more people thought Pacquiao would lose than people thought Mayweather would lose, Pacquiao's win over Hatton was greater.

As for Cotto this Saturday, while Cotto was basically training himself for Pacquiao, I don't think he was as badly drained as everyone likes to claim. Many people were favoring Cotto before that fight too. The main argument you have is that his trainer sucked for that fight, which is indeed true. However, Cotto didn't suddenly become undamaged after becoming a Mayweather opponent- the beatings Margarito and then Pacquiao put on him didn't disappear. The Cotto Mayweather will face is a bigger, different fighter with a better trainer now. If Mayweather beats him impressively, he'll deserve his share of credit, but people are still favoring Mayweather strongly over Cotto, which wasn't the case with Pacquiao. A Mayweather win over Cotto would be good, but unless he kills him inside the first 8 rounds, edge to Pacquiao.

This legacy thing also boils down to the fact that Mayweather left a lot more on the table than Pacquiao did. Pacquiao has done about 90% of what he could have done in a perfect world. He could have collected a few more scalps at lightweight for sure, and maybe at Light Welterweight, but did not. Meanwhile, Mayweather has only achieved about 65-75% of what he should have been able to achieve with his talents. But he simply didn't challenge himself much at all since moving on from lightweight. He would deserve all the respect in the world if he cleaned out 140 and took out the best rather than simply pwning Gatti before moving on, or if he took on everyone in a crammed welterweight field in 2007-2009 and beat them. Instead, he "retired" during that stretch, probably under the hope the field would thin itself and there wouldn't be demand for him to face some of those guys.

Lastly, the fact Mayweather and Pacquiao have yet to fight each other is a detriment to both men. Mayweather's unsubstantiated accusations and demands for blood tests made him look bad/scared, and Pacquiao's initial lawsuit response wasn't good either (I'd be offended if I was getting slandered too, but whatever.) Both probably think the other has a decent chance of beating them (even if their respective fanbases are more confident than they are), and since they're both megastars who can make loads of money no matter who they face, they don't want to risk ending the gravy train against each other. I don't think Arum wants to risk Pacquiao against Mayweather, but Mayweather's absolute insistence on dictating every term and not seriously giving ground to help make the fight is a black mark against him.

Mayweather's legacy is that of a man who only took fights he knew he could win and failed to challenge himself. He has ATG-level skills, but he doesn't have an ATG-level resume. He'd give his resume a major boost by beating Martinez, but there's no way in hell he'll ever do that because Martinez is a fight he might lose. Pacquiao, meanwhile, isn't as technically gifted as Mayweather by any means, but he at least took on much bigger men and on many opponents people thought would beat him or had a legitimate chance of beating him.

In short: Pacquiao challenged himself more, and has the most impressive win of either man, while both have a similar number of quality wins. Pacquiao mainly has the better legacy and resume because most will acknowledge he came close to maxing out what he was capable of, while more than a few Floyd fans will acknowledge that they wish he was more active and had fought more people than he did. Floyd didn't even come close to maxing out his legacy by producing an amazing resume, and his even said publicly that his legacy is less important to him than financial gain. That's why Pacquiao, as of right now at least, has the better legacy and resume. If Mayweather were to beat Pacquiao, fight Martinez at Middleweight and win, well, then his resume would finally come close to matching what his abilities would indicate he's capable of. But until he does that, his resume and legacy would both be underwhelming in relation to his abilities.

 

This content is protected

 

There's a lot of controversy surrounding Pacquiao's wins against Morales, and he got soundly outboxed in the first fight. Furthermore, many feel Marquez beat Pacquiao at least once. Getting KO'd by two journeymen really hurts Pac's legacy

 

People tend to discount Floyd's early career wins at lighter weights. He had some legit wins back then. But, we live in a "what have you done for me lately?" world and Floyd has "retired" and fought older/smaller guys a lot in the last 5 or so years.

When taken in their entiretly, the resumes are actually closer than a lot of people initially think. I still think Pac's is better, but don't dismiss Mayweather's.

 

Because you have different opinions? Duh.