We all know of their own rivalry. Finally getting around to absorbing all the fights now myself. On the surface of it, one might think it's a silly question. Pac was far more the crossover star, he was much more dynamic, had perhaps more high-profile wins. But does that necessarily mean he was the better overall fighter? Both had great careers and a huge collection of worthy scalps. So the question begs deeper pondering; who was actually the better overall? Thoughts?
I think Marquez is the better boxer, I also think Marquez won 3 of the 4 fights That said Pacquiao did better vs common opponents and I don't think Marquez can run through Oscar, Hatton, Margarito, mosley and clottey in the same way That said Marquez did have a better run at 135 In case anyone wants to debate the common opponents Pacquiao did better versus Mayweather, Barrera, and Bradley
Though I do think Pacquiao was a perfect storm of unorthodox, explosiveness, power, speed, and endurance
Well, once Marquez began using pharmaceuticals too he became Manny's superior ending their rivalry with a flattening.
Marquez a better boxer and fighter but Pacquaio “greater” had the better overall career. But I do believe Marquez won all their fights and I’d trust his best over Manny’s best if we have to transport one of them on a Time Machine to face the best of another era, say within the 126-135 range.
Cut the crap. Manny Pacquaio was the better boxer, fighter and star. And he had a better career and a better resume. He was better at everything. However, a question can be asked: who was better in their rivalry? I am typing 'Manny' even as my fingers are revolting.
I don't really think Manny ever bested Marquez but the decisions were close enough for me to bite my tongue about how the wins are used in his greatness discussion. JMM is one of my favourite fighters, and I even made a case that he was in it for their third match and was laughed off at the time. Despite my being actually serious. But it seems unquestionable that Manny was better, due to the rest of their careers. Barrera, Bradley, Mayweather, not just on accomplishment but H2H with other boxers. If you only look at their own match-up, it's missing the forest for the trees in the same way only looking at Norton/Ali would be, in judging their abilities. Saying that Marquez is a better textbook boxer will be true-obviously. But when you're in a fight, you're not even allowed to hit the other guy with a textbook.
JMM is the only one to KO Manny in the 21st century and Marquez was never KO'd but everything else favors Manny. Manny is 14-5 in major fights at 140+ JMM is 1-3 and lost almost every round against Mayweather. JMM was a bad matchup for Manny but Manny was a worse matchup for just about everyone else above 135.
I think that we would have to concede that Pacquiao had the greater resume. As for which of them is better head to head, now that it a much longer conversation.