Let's say that he retired right after hatton or the cotto fight due to politics or health reasons. Do you think his achievements are not yet all time great worthy? Even before he went up to these "higher weights", pac was already considered a great in the same league as barrera and morales. Don't let the Mayweather mess cloud your judgment.
I didn't say he was #100 did I ? And his accomplishments are very exaggerated. . Never fights the real champ in any division, fights for vacant titles and made up titles just to make then title fights. I say he is one of the ATG just not anywhere near the top of the food chain. Great fights he had been a part of, winning most while losing some. Dramatic career more so than a great dominate one, that is the truth
I won't let the "mayweather mess cloud my judgment" if you agree to do the same with the drug testing i'm not condemning pacman, i'm raising an important issue in a sport where it's easy to dodge controllers - yet people like you are trying to make excuses for it, instead of saying it's important
Barrera and Marquez were not the real champs at 126 then?Sasakul was not a real champ at 112? Hatton was not the real champ at 140? Have you ever seen him at the lower weights?
While i disagree with you that pac is top 100-150 all time. I do agree thathis "8 titles" are somewhat fabricated to a certain extent. He didnt exactly become the lineal champ in each division like some like to have you think. The catchweight against Cotto and Margerito for me were un necessary as he would have beat they all the same. Diaz at 140 wasnt exactly a great opponent and he should have faced shane at 147 when he was lineal and coming off the margerito win. Superfeather i think he won a vacant title, and i think at one weight he won a ring title. He should have fought a lot of fighters along the way too but takes less flack than floyd as floyd is an unlikeable guy. I think most of todays fans havent heard of most of Floyds earlier opponents so they write them off e.g they think having a close fight with Castillio proves Floyd isnt that good!! I think Floyd beats Pac no matter when they would have fought as i think he is a higher calibre fighter (just my 2 cents). Pac is by far the more entertaining value for money fighter. Im a big Floyd fan but if i was to fly to Vegas from the UK for a superfight i would choose a Pac fight over a Floyd fight.
He did not even outright rejected it. He was for the "additional testing" that Mayweather demanded but they failed to agree on the cut off of the blood test. Mayweather's team is ok with 14 days while Pac's team with 21. They could have settled with 17 or 18 days but both sides would not be bothered. Besides floyd admitted that it was all a promoter issue and would not deal with Arum. I would not discuss these anymore to avoid polluting this thread with it. You still have not answered my question regarding his standing if he retired after the hatton or cotto fight.
of course I have if you think the drug testing isn't 100% relevant just because pac looked like a wrecking ball before Floyd called it, but lost his power suddenly since then, then you're dreaming you don't have to push anyone into a corner with your 'window of opportunity' just to 'make a statement' no agenda, no problem with me
seriously for you to say pac lost his power is something i have serious problems with you don't hurt guys like clottey,toni,mosley, the guy still showed power dropping mosley is one example like i told you before he was fighting guys who have great chins.i always thought you was impartial but i am having my doubts now.
weren't you using these same examples in another thread as to why pacman didn't knock fighters out once Floyd asked for testing? so you "always thought I was impartial", but the golden goose was so long as I gave pac a pass on drug tests before it became a red flag? EDIT : if you don't play angles, I don't have to keep mopping up after you guys
You are clearly missing the point here who said i give pac a pass on the drug testing issue as i have clearly said i blame both of them what i take issue with is you trying to insinuate pac somehow lost his power which i don't really see to be honest.
pacquiao doesn't need mayweather to make him great, like duran didn't need leonard, because duran was already a great before he fought him. Pacquiaos achievements speak for themselves. Makes me sad when I hear people talk about how easy it is to become a world champion in 7 different weight divisions. No ones even come close. No one on here knows the full messy story of why this fight didn't happen, but it takes 2 willing participants to make a fight, and allegations of ped use have been thrown at both camps over the years. Appreciate pacquiao for what he is. I think the people who rate him 50th of all time would struggle to offer 49 boxers who have a better slate.
so if pac losing his power wasn't an issue, but his sticking point in negotiations was accepting drug tests at any time, what exactly are you disagreeing with?
how many all time greats d'you know who never won a title? I never said titles were the sole criteria of greatness. makes me sad mopping up after you
there's a big difference between winning a title, and trying to build up a fighter who won 7, but never fought the best fighter of his era (that judgment applies to Floyd too) i'm not going to become petty and reply to that last one