Manny Pacquiao Is A Warrior—Chasing P4P Fighters Way Past The Twilight of His Career...

Tbf, he couldn't fight Thurman, Porter, Garcias or Spence as he was with Arum and him and Haymon won't make fights. Its all in house and other than Crawford all Arum had was Vargas, Bradley and Horn. Matthysse was still under some sort of Top Rank banner but I think that fight completely separated their contractual obligations.

He's now with Haymon who has most of the best Welters so we'll sharp find out. Bringer ain't a bad first fight, guys not an elite fighter but Pacquiao is old and past prime, if he smokes Broner then we'll see if he wants to mix it with the top brass.

Plus Bradley and Vargas were both top ten ranked fighters at the weight when he fought them, not career defining fights (Bradley III anyway) but they aren't awful ones either.

 

So pacquiaos signature dominant wins are barrera and cotto? Thats what your sticking with?

Leanard koed a prime tommy hearns, that alone is above either of those guys, especially cotto who was drained at a catchweight. There really isnt anything to discuss if you think barrera and cotto are better wins than hearns.

Leanard was past his prime, inactive, and moving up in weight when he beat hagler. He also had detached retina problems. As a stick and move slick fighter, leanard had way more going against him than hagler who never changed weight classes. And also, no matter how much u nitpick, hagler is above ANYONE pacquiao beat.

Yes leanard lost to duran then he beat him twice. Thats not a huge mark against him, duran is on everyones top 50 and even top 25 lists of all time. Pacquiao lost to TIM BRADLEY AND JEFF HORN, DO YOU REALLY WANT TO GO THERE?

 

Pac has a thin resume? This is astonishing. Its absurd. You're argument continues to collapse.

 

Yea and Leonard lost to Camacho and Norris. Everybody loses past prime.

Barrera and Cotto are ATG wins. As I said Haglervwas past prime. And Duran was fat. And Hearns wasnt at his peak. Still good wins. But not against peak versions. Also Cotto wasnt drained, he said he made 145 easy.

Pac has a deeper resume than Leonard.

Pac also beat a peak version of Marquez.

 

The "promoter" excuse is invalid because they reached out to broner and garcia many times and offered 4 million. They also made a fight happen with mayweather.

He just didnt want to fight those guys.

I didnt say bradley and vargas were bad wins, but context matters. You cant talk about how pacquiao is the greatest of the last 30 years when there was so much young talent in his own division he didnt fight. Vargas lost to bradley BEFORE he fought pacquiao and pacquiao had beaten bradley. So with context, its clearly a cherry pick even if vargas was a top 10 guy.

Fighting bradley 3x but somehow never fightinf porter, thurman, or spence hurts his historical ranking even if bradley was a good fighter. Imagine if ali fought frazier 3x but avoided norton and foreman, people would tear his resume apart and you know it.

 

Pac fought the top guy at 112, 122, 126, 130, 140 and 147. He missed the top guy at 135 and 154. So your argument falls flat on its face.

 

pacquiao wasnt past his prime when he lost to bradley.

NONE of his wins over marquez were convincing and then he got knocked out.

What youre doing is making excuses for leanards opponents to discredit him and giving pacquiao every excuse for his poor performances while inflating his wins. Its very dishonest of you.

Hearns was prime and had two belts i believe. Im gonna ask you again, dont duck: do u think barrera and cotto were better wins than hearns and hagler, yes or no?

 

Pac has been past his prime since after the Cotto fight. His win against Marquez wasnt convincing, but it's hard to move up in weight and KO an ATG. He already did that too Barrera though.

Hearns is a better win than Barrera slightly. Both are ATGs but I rate Hearns a little higher. Prime Barrera is a better win than past prime 1987 Hagler. And prime Cotto is a better win than past prime Hagler. Especially since Pac came up from 112.

Nobody in boxing history has been champ at 112 and 147 before. To dominate a very good Welterweight after winning a Flyweight title. Makes for a plausible argument that Pac is greater than Leonard.

Especially since hes fought soooooo many top guys.

I'm not making excuses for Pacquiao. He was over hill after Cotto and especially after Margarito. He was an pro for over 15 year at that time. And been in 4 Marquez wars,.3 Morales wars, 2 Barrera wars, a Cotto war and Margarito war.

 

The only thing Pac is chasing now is another payday. He's fighting only for money now because he needs it period.

 

Actually I agree. Pacquiaos my favorite fighter but I call it like it is. Its speculated that he has financial trouble. Pacquiao at one time was a crazy,.determined fighter who would fight anybody. But those days are long gone.

At this point in his career hes very selective on who he fights. And he really shouldn't even receive criticism for that. Hes 40 years old, a 24 year professional. And doesn't hold a world title belt.

 

Exactly. I have no problem with people saying that FMJ is a better fighter H2H than Pac. That's subjective and debatable. Plus prime for prime Floyd would probably beat Pac or would at least be favored. A good big man almost always beats a good little man.

But Pac is undeniably greater than Floyd. You can argue for Floyd but the arguement will disintegrate pretty fast.

 

Manny Pacquaio is an ATG. The saying goes, when you have haters, you're doing something right. ALL Hail the Pacman!

 

Extremely, you have no argument for Pac being greater than Floyd - NONE.

This is why most aficionados and historians rate Floyd higher. Nice try though!

 

Floyd is by far the #1 fighter of this era, the only man to truly compare is Mr.Sugar Ray Robinson.