Pretty much the criteria has been laid out. It really comes down to who had the greater wins, thats what the debate is about now.
You have a hard time with very basic reading comprehension. I said Marquez was younger, fresher, and more prime in the first 3 fights and he couldn't even knock Pac down let alone out.
Criteria laid out by who? If the only criteria someone has is greater wins, and they believe Pacquiao has greater wins than everyone ranked below him, that's their opinion.
Why are you making excuses for Pacquiao ? He is a great fighter but he has faced his superiors in the ring like Marquez and Floyd etc.
You rank JMM higher than Pac on your ATG list... you're a child pretending to be something of a historian w/ famous uncles. You just play a character on this board....
Don't get me wrong, debate is fun. But the debate here has devolved into fan boy bs. As for your other post, not every person had the same criteria, not everyone bases purely on greatness of wins, and not everyone considers a wins greatness the same as each other. For me, Pacquiao is top ten for a few different reasons. 1) legitimate champion from FLW to WW will probably never be repeated in my lifetime 2) he won fighter of the decade which puts him in very limited company 3) his resume of wins is outstanding 4) most of his losses were either avenged or debatable 5) his wins pre and past prime are amazing 6) his losses pre and past prime all give the impression they'd have been very different in his prime 7) idgaf about the Cotto catchweight
Sure but his 8th divisional title against a non ranked Margarito, its impressive due to the size disadvantage, but really how legitimate a win was it to get that 8th division strap? Margaritos legacy was tarnished at that time.
