Where would you rank Roman Gonzalez on an ATG list?

The "p4p lists" are possibly more about hype, celebrity, fame, reputation, career-achievement than current proven ability though. That's my opinion but it's hard to prove it, since any debate about the nature of "p4p" is doomed because it's so vague.

An easier way to look at it: In the relevant weight class. As a 'world class' welterweight, since late 2011/'12 Pacquaio has looked decidedly ordinary. He'd fallen to about down on the same level as Marquez and just above Bradley, neither will go down as great welterweights or even near-great at the weight, imo.
Pacquiao beat Bradley twice, of course, but arguably lost to Marquez in the 3rd fight too, nevermind the KO loss in the 4th fight. And Bradley beat Marquez (and drew with some other guy I forget) so it levels out a bit between them.

Objectively, away from all the hype and history and money and personalities involved, this was quite a routine champion v #1 contender fight, in quite a slow-moving division where old guys are still hanging around and most top 10s don't fight each other.

The RING magazine WELTERWEIGHT rating for the end of 2014:

Champion: Mayweather
1. Pacquiao
2. Brook
3. Khan
4. Bradley
5. Marquez
6. Porter
7. Thurman
8. Guerrero
9. Maidana
10. Chaves

It's notable that Pacquiao was #1, yet had only gone 1-1 with #4 Bradley (let's say 2-0 to be fair) and 1-1 with #5 Marquez at the weight (arguably 0-2) and KO'd badly in his most recent encounter with that fighter - but hadn't faced anyone else there in that top 10.
Other than that, he had wins over Algieri and Rios, two unexceptional fighters who weren't even legit full welters.

I wouldn't consider that a particularly strong #1 contender.
He's proven himself DOMINANT over exactly 1 fighter (Bradley) in that top 10.

Since losing to Mayweather, Pacquiao has gone and beat Bradley again.

 

Bradley was a "p4p" rated fighter based on what? Beating Pacquiao (which he didn't do)? Or more likely, beating Marquez (who beat Pacquiao!). It's a circle. I wouldn't consider Bradley extremely good in terms of world class or world champion welterweights. Marquez neither.
I guess 147 is a favourite division among the "p4p" ratings people. It always has been.

Maidana looked better against Mayweather than Pacquiao did, imo. So, maybe Maidana was better than "extremely good".

 

That's based on name-recognition.
Taking Pacquiao as he was in May 2015, he's not a dominant #1 contender.

I mean, let's take it for what it is. A welterweight win.
Is it a better victory than Marlon Starling's victory over Lloyd Honeyghan ?

 

Without doubt.

 

I'd probably consider Starling-Honeyghan marginal better, at the least. Marginal if I'm being generous to Floyd and Manny.
Allowing for the fact that Honeyghan was probably not at his best, he was still undefeated barring a TD loss to Vaca which was mercilessly avenged. Honeyghan was only 2 1/2 years removed from his win over Curry too, which is a long time in boxing but less time than the distance between Pacquiao and his prime.
And Starling destroyed Honeyghan impressively.

How about Honeyghan-Curry compared to Mayweather-Pacquiao ? Surely Honeyghan's is the far better win ?

 

It will be considered the more relevant victory, ultimately-given their historical standing. The performance might not be better, but in terms of enhancing the resume and determining overall standing it will mean more.

 

That's just rating them on name recognition though.
You may as well just list the most famous boxers in order of fame according to your own perception, maybe spend a couple of minutes doing a little bit of shuffling around if you know X beat Y in a big fight (regardless of the circumstances surrounding the fight), and call that the "p4p all-time list".
And that's exactly how most these "all time" lists are done, so it seems.

For people who know a bit more about boxing it should be possible to cut through the bullsh!t and evaluate how good or great a win actually is in objective sporting terms.
Or don't bother.

 

But there's really completely objective way of doing that, is there?

I mean, in the case of Honeyghan, he had already lost to fringe contender in Vaca, avenged it and then had defended against a relative non-entity before getting his head handed to him. Prior to that point, he had blasted out two blown up junior welters and then labored to defeat Blocker in his only notable post Curry win. And, even the Curry win was against someone who had been struggling to make the weight.

When framed in that perspective, Starling's victory over Honeyghan (probably his signature performance) loses a bit of its luster.

 

Who's better.

The Curry that Lloyd beat or the Pacman that Floyd beat?

I'd pick Pacman on points.

 

Yeah, and it's still marginally better than Mayweather's win over Pacquiao, imo.

 

Donald Curry was better than Manny Pacquiao at welterweight.
A 25 year-old undefeated Donald Curry, a 36-year-old Manny Pacquiao who'd been sparked out by one punch just 4 fights earlier.
It should be a no-brainer.

It seems people are bending over backwards to defend Pacquiao and Mayweather Jr.
They don't need defending, they will rightfully be regarded as legends.
But let's not make their meeting out to be something it is not. Especially at the expense of historical fighters who don't quite get their just dues.

 

Not a no brainer to me, I had to think long and hard before picking pac on points.

Nah I've already said I think Gonzalez will go down as better than Floyd and Pac, I don't feel any reason to defend either of them two.

I just so happen to think Pac beats Curry. Apologies if you disagree.

 

This is an interesting little debate. Just to be clear - are you favoring a 2015 Pacquiao to beat a prime undefeated Curry?

 

I'm favouring the version that fought Floyd over the version that fought Lloyd.