All very good to great fighters in Pac's win column and taken as a whole better than Duran, Hearns and Benitez. Even the "very good" guys on the list below were champs in one division or another. ODLH GREAT, HOF Cotto GREAT Probably HOF Mosely GREAT probably HOF Margarito Very good Barerra GREAT HOF Marquez GREAT HOF Morales GREAT HOF Bradley Very good Possible HOF Broner Very good Thurman Very good Hatton Very good Spence (?) Very good, too young yet in his career to determine if great You mention SRL losing to Camacho and Norris at the end of his career, he was 34 when he lost to Norris (Camacho fight was a joke, even so he was YOUNGER than Pac is now). Pac is 42 years old; his final three fights will be against Broner (much younger and it was a title bout), Thurman (much younger and it was a title bout) and Spence (undisputed WW title bout). PAc's record craps all over SRL's record. And SRL is a bona fide HOFer.
No win situation for Manny vs Floyd. Floyd is dissing Manny right now, he's fighting because he needs too. If he loses to Spence, Floyd will be like i told you he was a bum, if he beats Spence, Floyd will be like i beat that guy so easy, was the easiest work of my career and then he will go back to dissing Pacquiao for still fighting because he apparently needs too.
Pac came from FLYWEIGHT and at age 42 is going to fight Errol Spence. He's been a champion in 4 separate decades. 5X lineal champion. 8 division champion. Most times welterweight champion and oldest welterweight champion ever. His career was supposed to be over 9 years ago. We have a far greater chance of seeing a Duran or SRL or SRR again than a Manny Pacquiao. You are a hater if you don't think these stats are absolutely breathtaking.
Lmfao!!!!! Stop. You don't even believe that. Benitez is the weakest of srls top wins is better than anyone pac beat by far he's a top 45 atg. SRL's loses Duran top 10 atg Norris top 5 atg at 154 Camacho hof Pacs loses Torrecampo bum ktfo against Sangsurat ktfo against Erik Morales faded but hof atg Jmm ktfo against hof atg Bradley good fighter not hof Pbf best fighter he fought lost badly legacy fight hof atg Horn bum fight shouldn't have been close at all It's not even close. Pacs best win would be SRL's 4th or 5th best win. SRL > pac
He was bigger than everyone at those low weights he was drained and got ktfo 2x down there. Not impressed! He has too many loses and bad loses and his best win is MAB. He's a atg no hate but this GOAT talk is ****ing unwarranted considering his resume combined with his skills far more deserving fighters than pac. Ffs he wasn't even the best fighter of his own era.
Too many bad loses failed in his legacy fight and his best win is barely a top 100 atg in mab. Great fighter top 25 to 30 atg mostly based on longevity and moving through weights and popularity.
If and only if, Pac finds the courage to face the man he has been ducking since 2008, The Magic Man Paulie Malignaggi, then he can be GOAT. BTW. Pac also ducked Humberto Soto.
If Pac beats Spence, he won't be the goat but he has to be in consideration as a top 5 boxer who has ever lived in boxings rich 2 century history. The first and only man to hold titles in 4 of the original 8 weight classes, could of been 5 but he never made a campaign at Bantamweight, but he did win a major world title at 122. Don't think this will ever be duplicated. A major world champion in 4 separate decades along with being a top 5 p4p boxer in 3 decades which is insane. Never will be duplicated. Then there's all his old man accomplishments which are frankly too many to list and his supremely stacked resume which all add cherry to the topping of one of the greatest boxers of all time.
What bad losses?! The losses to ATGs in Marquez (whom he beat twice and drew with), Morales (whom he beat twice), or Mayweather (who was never beaten)? The loss to a heavy-handed Big Daddy Med in a weight class he had become too big for? A loss to Rustico Torrecampo when he was a baby a year into his career, fighting almost once a month? Maybe the loss to HOFer Timothy Bradley that most think was bull...and whom he later beat twice? The only loss you can say was a 'bad' one was to Jeff Horn...which most also think was bull, but even if you didn't, there are plenty of other ATG boxers with similar 'bad' losses at was clearly the downward trend of a career, like say...oh I don't know...Sugar Ray Robinson?! Or maybe it will be the likely Errol Spence loss? Will that be bad, losing to a unified champion and someone considered a top ten p4per? Look man, I don't think Pac will become GOAT even if he beats both Spence AND Crawford on the same night, but let's not make **** up about "bad losses".
Yes his loss to torrecampo was a bad one no excuses. Losing to a faded erik Morales was a bad loss. Horn was an awful loss and his best win is MAB. I'm sorry but that is no GOAT. Plenty of boxers have better wins and resumes than him and not as bad loses like srl for example who's not even a top 10 atg but you want to turn around and say pac is better than him??? What kind of sense does that make? The guy beat Duran hearns Hagler and benitez ffs all of those guys are top 45 atgs or better. Stop with this nonsense.
Torrecampo was a 21 fight vet with punching power going up against a 1 yr. old boxing baby with no amateur background and literally learning on the go and fighting once a month because he was desperate for cash. Get out of here with the 'bad loss'. Disregarding any alleged shenaigans Morales' team pulled, losing to an ATG is never a bad loss, especially if they pull a rabbit out of the hat and turn back the clock. And he beat him almost immediately after in a fight that seemed to look suspiciously like the first until it didn't. Again, get out of here with this bad loss nonsense. If you think Horn legitimately won the fight then yes, you got me. This would be a bad loss. His one, singular, only, bad loss. That's not an 'ATG' or 'GOAT' application killer. I'm sorry, I know you hate the guy, but it isn't. Debatable but again, a "best win" being against an ATG close to the height of his powers is NOT an argument against it. I don't disagree with this; if Pac only had 3 or 4 weight classes to his name, this wouldn't even be debatable. It's the consistent performance going up weight-class after weight-class and STILL performing at a pound-for-pound level that's the biggest and best argument for Pac (along with never failing a drug test, even VADA tests). Even with that, I still don't think it's debatable. The answer is one of two choices and has been for decades, bordering on a century: Henry Armstrong or Sugar Ray Robinson. That's it. It's the fantasy notion that Pacquiao's losses are just like, SO bad that they are disqualifying from even entertaining the thought that I find objectionable...because that is silly.
