Pacquiao & The Dilemma of Defining Greatest

Dilemma : a situation in which a difficult choice has to be made between two or more alternatives, especially equally undesirable ones.

I have been a Pac admirer since the 1st time I saw him (Ledwaba) I ordered all fights available- was on VHS back then, & eventually Utube.
But something happened with my respect for him and it wasn't the doping question. It was my personal 'vetting' process which was now being challenged.

For me a great will not just attempt to unify a division, but be successful in doing so. No matter how exciting a boxer is or how they win, that isn't my criteria. It's did you become the king of the hill (division)? If one didn't & I still ranked them it was because of reasons I could prove like promoters haggling or as we say fighters ducking. Can't take a belt if one puts roadblocks with demands.

I learned Pac was a Fly title holder b4 super bantam. Then he proves his desire to be great by gaining a 2nd title in one weight class. old days called cleaning out the division. Problem?
He lost his 1st bid to win 2 titles simultaneously vs Sanchez. I thought he won, but verdict said otherwise.
2nd attempt, why Pac? "cause that's what gr8s do! Unify. Problem?
Another draw (JMM) weird in that Marquez kinda clowned him for 2/3rds of the fight, yet I couldn't fathom how a judge screwed up, though he admitted it and lamented over it.

Pac should have been a 2 time champ with 2 titles held but he lost it by bad judging, nevertheless I accept the verdict. He is -0-2 for holding 2 or more belts same time.

3rd shot at title(s), why? Cause thats what greats do! Morales not only out-boxed him, he busted him up. And to add to the clowning he went southpaw final round getting clocked by a Pac who couldn't drop Erik in the 12th!
How often do greats get out boxed in multiple championship fights? He is now 0-3 in gaining more than 1 belt.
It would take 4 years later & when he finally wins 2 at same time (cotto), one is called a diamond belt. I am supposed to accept that as a legit belt? Why? If so, then why not the USBA? NABO? In fact I think Pac was one of the pioneers so to speak in making the WBO acceptable.
6 years later he goes for multiple belts loses a Unanimous decision. 0-4 fighting for multiple titles.

Question if anyone had the chance to choose your destiny as a great fighter with an alternative--one or the other- Would U prefer to be an 8 division champ with no unification in your entire career?
Or a 4 division champ where you unified all belts? My opinion
Winning in 8 weight classes is a testimony to staying in shape when the time comes. Anyone can win a belt. Just look at how many belt holders get clowned here daily!! Wilder, AJ, Spence take ya pick!
Winning in 8 is not a reason to say he is one of the greatest ever. Its like saying someone in baseball broke the homerun record or in basketball broke record for most tripple double or scoring leader.
Well Pac broke the record for most divisional titles. That is not a testimony to being the greatest or near the greatest.
Holy is the only 4 time HW champ. That is a record broken, not a testimony to greatness.

 

Cool response. But again ...here comes this word again.. dilemma is-
For those who say belts mean nothing...should never say Pac won 8 of them! I'm not choosing a side as much as thinking I am exposing a problem in how we sometimes legitimize a belt when we want, then we call them Alphabet belts when a fighter we dont like has them.

I'm struggling with it myself to which is why I prefaced on a singular vetting process. Either belts mean something or they don't. By your take I interpret this to mean 8 times Pac won a meaningless belt. If I'm wrong with interpretation I have no problem being corrected.

True. To which is why I asked this of us fans.

Either belts mean something or they don't.
If/since many of us question legitimacy of belts, then how can we question if one chooses to clean out a division versus one who doesn't clean out?
It may sound like a gripe against Pac, because it is a gripe! .
Again, not because I dislike Manny, rather I'd have to revamp the definition of a great if more fighters start doing this. Fighting one belt holder in a division then move out.

Reiterating I see winning 8 titles as breaking a record, not proof he is the best ever or one of the best -as stated by people like Max Kellerman. Pac IMO is one of the best in his era. Previous era he can't win that many.
Here is an oustanding example of this argument from our own board.
https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/why-do-people-say-pacquiao-is-an-8-div-world-champ.588713/

flyweight, bantamweight, featherweight, lightweight, welterweight, middleweight, junior middleweight and heavyweight

Pac or any fighter who won @Superbantam is fighting in what class during the original 8?
Today's Superfeather would fight in what division in the golden era?
Point: Golden era had to fight a greater disparity of weight to get a title at either feather or LW. Super Welter today, what would Pac have been in the golden era to get that divisional weight class record? How do I rank him over those who didn't have the luxury of gaining a couple of pounds to get another belt?

Simple- In order to win 8 classes in the golden era he would have to go from LOL! again-
1.flyweight
2. bantamweight
3.featherweight
4. lightweight
5. welterweight
6. middleweight
7. junior middleweight
and he'd have to fight at heavyweight to get 8 divisional titles.

So if the great Benny Leonard, Ray Robinson, Hank Armstrong fought in today's era how could they not have won in 6,7,8,9 classes?
Today's myriad of divisions would've allowed Charly Burley to become a champ. In multiple weight classes.
How could Rocky Marciano not have been able to cut weight 4 a catchweight at LHW? then slaughter the CW class & then beat a paper champ at HW like a John Ruiz or B. Stiverne?

 

I wrote why I stated he wasn't considered the greatest.

 

And again this is a question. (If) you could choose how to be defined as great with (2) options which would U choose and why?

 

Hey that's all I was asking for ; which would U choose!