Who is The Greatest Asian Fighter of All time???

He does have the better resume. Your attempt to refute it in your last post was the only thing that was laughable, as you included every minor win on a world level of Pacquiao's with only Harada's HOF caliber wins. The *******s, who never know any better, obviously bought it, but not anyone who's even remotely educated on the two fighter's opposition. Then again, you've never been much better than a ******* yourself.

Let's compare the two fighter's resumes.

Top performances by Pacquiao:

-De La Hoya (excellent performance, albeit against a walking corpse)
-Barrera I (Pac's first big break-through and his best win on paper despite Barrera's difficulties at the time)
-Morales II and III (Morales past his best in both fights after outboxing Pac handily in the first encounter)
-Marquez I and II (arguably both losses for Pac, I see this series as a draw for Pac at best, and this against the best fighter he'd ever faced in his prime)
-Ledwaba (dominant win for Pac over the much smaller Ledwaba, Pacquiao had yet to hit his prime here, though he was a physical beast at the weight)
-Diaz (another impressive performance against a hapless opponent that Pacquiao fans put too much merit into simply because of the weight)
-Sasakul (was being outboxed thoroughly prior to the stoppage, a huge win given the circumstances, but given too much consideration by Pacquiao fans considering how Pac looked and how poor he was at Flyweight overall)
-Faded version of Larios and Velasquez

Top performances by Harada:

-Jofre I and II (a better win than any on Pacquiao's resume by a fair deal, considering Jofre was not only the bigger opponent, but the best ever to fight at the higher weight class, though he was having troubles making weight by that point in his career)
-Famechon (Harada's valiant attempt at the Featherweight title against one of the top FW's of the era in slick-boxing, uber-skilled Australian Johnny Famechon, only to be blatantly robbed in his last great performance)
-Medel (a HOF caliber win for Harada, one of the best BW's of the era and a very unsung fighter, on level with Pac's wins over faded versions of Morales and Barrera in the second fight, as Medel himself was fading)
-Kingpetch I and II (after delivering a brutal beating and stoppage over Kingpetch in their first fight, Harada was blatantly robbed in the rematch yet again, by Decision over one of the best Asian Flyweights of all time)
-Ebihara (an undermentioned win for a young Harada over a young Ebihara, another HOF caliber win over one of the best Asian Fly's of all time)
-Hawkins (another win for Harada over one of the best contenders of the era in Dwight Hawkins, and at Featherweight no less, though Hawkins was nearing the end himself)
-Caraballo (win over one of the top BW contenders of the era who's only previous loss was to Jofre)
-Herrera (fought the likes of Ramos, Laguna, and an ancient Joe Brown, handing Laguna his first ever loss)
-Rudkin (best British BW of the era outside of McGowan, losses only to the best of the era at world level)
-Aoki (one of the best Asian fighters at the weight class in a time where Asians were very prominent at the lower weights)

That's when comparing the two fighter's top opposition. Harada still holds the edge, while Pacquiao holds the edge in terms of accomplishments on paper, as he seemed to get the benefit of the doubt in his decisions a lot more often than did Harada. Pacquiao's edge is in his weight jumping prowess, which Pacquiao fans hold above all when determining a great fighter, rather than the level of opposition a fighter has beaten. When you factor in that Harada was, IMO, the more skilled, versatile fighter (though Pac continues to improve and his career is not yet over), it's perfectly reasonable to still hold him in higher esteem.

Once again, Pacquiao still has time to add on to his career, so it's hardly out of the realm of possibility for him to pass Harada soon (he likely will by the time he's retired). He just hasn't quite yet IMO, though it's very close.

 

^

This is about all you need to know of the typical Pac fan's opinion on this topic.

 

Bruce Lee of course!

 

Everyone who thinks Pac has the vastly superior record...read this..Sweet Pea has made it easy for everyone to see why they are still so close, you dont even have to do your own research.
Its all there for everyone to see....Nice work Pea.

 

Boppa how do you manage to have Pac in your top ten of all time?

That seems WAY too high to me. Please explain!

 

My problem when you do these h2h comparisons, at least when it concerns Pac, is you're so hellbent on downgrading his wins that you lose sight (or in straight-up denial) of the qualitative nature that makes those wins significant. Take for example Oscar, for the benefit of your argument you would say Oscar was a walking corpse. That may be so (IMO he still significantlydwarfed over Pac). It doesn't change the fact that Oscar still held definitive physical advantages. It doesn't change the fact Oscar was stll a 2-1 favorite. It doesn't change the fact that Oscar had never been "beaten" up bad much less KO'd. And it doesn't change the fact that Pac won every second of every round of that fight and gave Oscar the beating of his life.

Case in point #2, EM. I will actually agree with you that EM was past his best in ALL 3 fights, yet you fail to credit Pac once again for the manner he destroyed him, with Pac adding yet another "first and only to.." to his string of superlatives. Yet somehow you would bring up that EM thoroughly outboxed Pac in the first fight, and fail to notice that maybe Pac wasn't prime either then, and the fight was actually close and that EM actually took just as much of a beating...and oh yeh he was fighting at 130 for the first time.

Case in point #3 The marquez fights....yeh sure Marquez could have arguably won both fights, but too bad he didn't. An "unlucky" draw and a cose SD win is no knock on Pac....it is more a testament to JMM's stylistic challenge to Pac and of how Pac still found a way to win.

Case in point#3 Sasakul, once again its all about the qualitative nature that defines Pac. He knocked out the recognized champ out cold in his own backyard, a country notorious for hometown decisions. BTW he was 19. Go ahead, pretend your 19 and accomplishing that.

Ledwaba?---fought on 2 wks notice, Mab?---annihilation of p4p#3. Larios? Velasquez? Solis?---tuneups and were treated accordingly. Really, the significance of everyone of those wins you listed far surpasses whatever excuses you could nitpick to convince yourself they were status quo.

...However, when describing Harada's significant wins you do a 360 and try to embellish and make excuses for his big wins and near misses. ****, you act as if you were on ringside for his fights. Ｉ　ｍｅａｎ　Ｉ can go on, but it really wont matter. You consciously choose not to give Pac more credit but instead focus on the "....oh but that guy was (insert excuse here)...yada yada yada". Em shot? MAB shot? Oscar shot? Yeh maybe, but Pac didn't treat them like they were shot, he treated them as if they were amateur no-hopers. Quality, thats where Pac's greatness lies.

Ultimately it's your own loss.You're so hellbent on belittling Pac's accomplishments that you are failing to recognize a living legend in your era, someone you prolly won't ever experience again in your lifetime.... Yeh dude Harada, awesome fighter, whatever. I will stick to my beliefs that fighters from an era devoid of "quality training" and sports nutrition would be hard pressed to match up even with B-level fighters of today, and thus shouldnt be compared with modern fighters....but if masturbating over some grainy black and white clips of fighters you've never even seen fight is your cup of tea, then more power to ya.

 

De La Hoya is a HOFer too

 

Injin Chi

 

Chavez

 

Koki Kameda

 

atsch

you're mature

 

I'm doing that to put it in perspective for the illogical Pac fans, or those less educated on the circumstances, and to make a direct comparison with the circumstances of Harada's bouts.

And none of that changes the fact that De La Hoya was a walking corpse. Still, I did include it as probably his best performance, because regardless of how useless Oscar was in the ring that night, Pacquiao fought a pretty flawless fight.

Here's the problem with this: Most of Pacquiao's "first and only to" superlatives come against fighters who are past their primes and ripe for the picking. It's a more a case of Pacquiao being the first one to get to them at the right stage than Pacquiao accomplishing anything extraordinary by beating faded versions of those fighters. You saw very clearly how Morales was looking around the same time of his losses to Pacquiao in his terrible performance against Raheem.

I don't think Pac was in his technical prime for the first Morales fight, but physically he certainly was. And it was after his one-sided beatdown of Barrera and first fight with Marquez, so he was far from green or even really pre-prime at all, just yet to his his technical peak. Morales was no natural 130 pounder either, and why does the fact that it was Pac's first fight at the weight count as a disadvantage? He was clearly better suited to the weight at that point in time than he was 126.

He found a way to win with the judges, not with me, so I obviously don't consider it a testament to his greatness the way you do.

Again, huge win, but it gets blown out of proportion by Pac fans when taken into perspective with how Pac was performing in that bout prior to Sasakul getting careless, and how he performed at Flyweight in general. I've heard Pac fans claim that young, green, inexperienced, inconsistent, badly weight drained version of Pac would beat a guy like Mark Johnson. Just ridiculous.

You just admitted half of them were insignificant tune-ups. The excuses I'm putting forth aren't to discredit Pac, they're once again to put things into perspective for the delusional Pac fans.

Perspective.

Not to mention I clearly mention which of Harada's wins were past prime and the circumstances with those bouts as well.

And how is that, by giving reports of them? I wasn't ringside for any of Pacquiao's fights either, that doesn't change the fact that I can still give an accurate assessment of them from the film I've seen.

The highlighted bit makes no sense. There's no distinct difference in terms of "quality" in beating a shot fighter and a no-hoper, as they're basically the same thing.

I've acknowledged on multiple occasions Pacquiao's greatness. Every time I'm on the verge of stating that I've underrated him or that he's deserving of his accolades, the *******s strike again and bring the nuthuggery to a whole new level, once again turning me into the guy who has to set everything straight. Of course when things get heated I start getting called a hater, when my beef isn't with Pacquiao at all, it's with his completely overzealous fans.

Here you prove not only your immaturity, but your lack of knowledge. You obviously don't even know who Pacquiao's being compared to by acting as if Harada fought in a primitive era where no footage exists. There's plenty of available footage, and his skills are very apparent, regardless of the era (the 60's). I suppose you think Ali was primitive as well? Robinson? Pep?

What "quality training: were they missing out on? Please enlighten me. It's funny how their lack of quality training allow them to fight 15 consecuitive rounds at a high pace when modern "greats" like De La Hoya can't even go 9 full rounds without gassing, even with all of the supposed advantages in modern science. Maybe you should let the results speak for themselves, and let the footage do the talking, especially when you're just spewing verbal diarrhea and repeating nonsense you've heard, with nothing to back it up.

But oh well, I'll allow you to send this to whichever of your friends to copy and paste their response from MS Word, or whatever you used last time.

 

Post of The Week! :happy

Personally, I have Pacquiao as the greatest Asian fighter of all-time with Harada as a very close second - so close that I wouldn't argue with anyone who had them the other way around. Pancho Villa 3rd.

I suppose who you have higher hinges on your perception of Pac's 1st win over Morales and his win over Marquez, as these wins are viewed one of two ways: (a) Morales lost to Raheem primarily because his body didn't cope well at 135 and so the Morales that Pac beat in that 2nd fight was the same guy who beat Pac 1st time out - it was Pac's stunning performance, inflicting the first KD and first stoppage defeat on Morales, that 'shot' him rather than him just becoming shot for some unknown reason in the space of a year from their 1st fight to their 2nd / the second fight with Marquez was so close that it could have gone either way, but Pac got the decision and so should be credited with a win over the 2nd best fighter in the world today, or (b) Morales had became shot after his 1st fight with Pac, that's why he lost to Raheem and Pac / Marquez deserved to win his 2nd fight with Pac so clearly that Pac's win can be discredited as a robbery.

Personally, I genuinely believe (a) is true and they are both fine victories. But I understand if others believe (b) and so prefer Harada, fair enough.

 

That seems like a fair assessment of Pac's best opposition. Won't be able to comment on Harada's opposition except for Joffre.

Woud you say that Harada and Pacquiao are the top 2 Asian boxers of all time? Anyone else near their level?

 

pac easy