Where would you rank Roman Gonzalez on an ATG list?

Pulitzer Prize goes to Luf the poet.

 

Anyone can beat anyone, hypothetically.
But I do think it's a no brainer to say 1986 Donald Curry was a better welterweight than 2015 Pacquiao based on form, age, championship status etc., and that beating the former up in 6 rounds is better than a tame 12-round points win over the latter.
It's not a wholly objective exercise but it is just about as close as we can get. Without basic assumptions like this standing out as near-enough obvious, rating fighters at all would be impossible.

No need to apologise.

 

I see. I couldn't say I'd bet on that outcome.

Curry might have been below par that night, against the Ragamuffin Man, but this is often used to take away from Honeyghan's performance, which had more energy and sharpness than Pacquaio could muster in any 12 rounds against FMJ. To be honest, I had not considered Manny as having put in a truly outstanding performance at Welterweight since Cotto and, if I recall, that was arranged at a catchweight.

Either way, as poor as Curry might be remembered that night in Atlantic City, the manner in which Curry was subdued is not something I believe Pacquiao could replicate. As far as Pacquiao's chances of outpointing Curry goes, I just don't see the version of Pacquaio we're talking about managing to land with enough consistency to make this conclusive, whereas I can see even this weakened version of Curry taking Manny out. Just my own opinions...

 

And I could argue the man who would go on to shut out Bradley is obviously a no brainer to beat the man who was stopped in 6 vs Honeyghan.

Clearly with men of this talent, there are no none-brainers.

The only objectivity is the lack of bias when making a prediction, this is ultimately a subjective sport and that is something that should be embraced.

Who looks more impressive on film to you? The man losing to Lloyd or the man losing to Floyd?

 

:good

 

Forget the "p4p". It means nothing.
Rate them in their weight class and it all becomes clear enough.
Manny Pacquiao in the 3 1/2 years leading up to the Mayweather fight cuts a picture of a relatively ordinary welterweight if we're comparing to "a few better wins in history" or whatever the claim was.
#1 contender to Mayweather at the time makes him a very good win, but it's a stretch to call up the wins he had when he was in scintillating form some 5 years earlier. Judged on his "recent" form, he wasn't a strong #1 contender, nor a weak one.
The 'greatest' thing about the fight on Mayweather's part is the fact the HE was an old man too.

 

Look, an undefeated 25-year-old undisputed (career) welterweight champion of the world with the recent form and performances of 1986 Donald Curry IS a better win than a 36-year-old Manny Pacquiao.
You can disagree, but he just is. Based on everything.

But of course we can dismiss it all as "too subjective" and throw around the word "bias".

Mayweather-Pacquiao was possibly the most unimpressive thing ever captured on film, outside of Andy Warhol's catalogue (which I'm only assuming was really awful, having not actually seen.)

Pacquiao looked bad.
Curry looked bad.
We can credit Floyd and Lloyd for that.

 

It seems like you're trying to bend over backwards to defend Lloyd here.

Nothing you've said leads me to change my mind. I still pick Pac to beat him.

Never seen that catalogue btw.

 

Defend Lloyd from what ? It's almost universally regarded as a very good, near-great or outright GREAT win at welterweight.
Mayweather v Pacquiao was/is regarded as something less than that by a vast number of people who watched it and had been following the soap opera build up over the six years prior.
It's interesting that some people here on this classic section are interesting in boosting its stock in a sporting sense against almost all the common standards we use to evaluate fights throughout history.
And let me be clear: It is a good win by a great champion over a past-prime but still good #1 contender.

Nothing I've said (or could say) would lead you to change your mind because your opinion is not based on reason.

 

I'm not interested in boosting it's stock. Both pissed me off something chronic taking so long.

My reason is I think that version of Pac beats that version of Lloyd on points or potentially late stoppage.

 

But even if you do genuinely think the 2015 Pacquiao beats Honeyghan and/or Curry, that's not how most people decide "best wins". Styles make fights, so anyone can argue or think anything in the case of head-to-head fantasy scenarios. We can all imagine anything.

The fact of the matter is than Donald Curry was undisputed, undefeated, prime, 25-year-old, he'd recently destroyed his rival titlist (Milton McCrory), and was 'cleaning out' the division in style.

Whereas Pacquiao was a 36-year-old man, a definite legend based on earlier career achievements including a lot in far lighter divisions, and a worthy #1 contender with ability, but one who hadn't done much 'world beating' in the last few years and had looked beatable and had in fact been beaten badly by Marquez.
His win(s) over Tim Bradley don't cancel out the loss, nor compare with what Curry had been doing 1983-'86.

This is fairly objective exercise, and I doubt many here would disagree much with the gist of what I'm saying.

But I understand you have your own ways of doing things, and are heavily into the imaginary "head to head" thing, so I guess that's part of the issue of the disagreement.

 

Yeah I love the whole h2h and eye test.

I don't disagree with the gist of what your saying if we remove the h2h element.

I believe h2h is the best representation of my own rankings but even that aside this is far from objective. It's still subjective when comparing resume and achievement.

I just cba doing that kind of comparison. Show me film and ask who I think will win. That's my gist.

 

Boxing isn't the math equation you casuals want to boil it down to with your "talent pool" numbers in lieu of actually watching fights.

Gonzalez has a heap of quality wins. And you have to follow the sport to know.

Gonzalez beat, nay destroyed, Niida, the established No. 1 in the division. Beat Takahama, a hyper aggressive brawler. Ditto Chango Vargas/Francisco Rodriguez.

Beat Juan Francisco Estrada, a premier boxer-puncher and now a p4p talent.

Beat Rocky Fuentes, a perennial top 10 flyweight. Ditto Edgar Sosa, at two classes.

Tuned up Yaegashi, a unique stylist with a granite chin and the lineal flyweight champion. Stopped Brian Viloria, a two-weight beast.

Decisioned McWilliams Arroyo, a ranked flyweight with a fine amateur background and probably the hardest hitter in the division. And last weekend jumps up to decision a naturally bigger man in Cuadras, the consensus No. 2 man who holds a wide win over the No. 3 (Concepcion).

That is 7 or 8 high level wins. Twice as many as someone like Carlos Zarate.

He's an ATG. Top 100.