Arum tells marquez the road to pacquiao is through valero

Likewise :good

 

after enzo and self kill kissing and making up. :hey

now we have jeff and fleaman flinging serious man love in this thread.

 

thats a ridiculous assessment.

no matter what ideas you come up with to justify having pac there, they can all be countered.

IMO pac never beat marquez. He beat a shot Morales.
Weve been here a million boring times. No need to go again and again


Yes i can imagine a fighter being top in spite of the amount of times they've as you guys love to call it Kissed the Canvas. Is this too hard for you to accept?

You say that but then think Manny should be there for FAILING to beat a guy he put down 3 times in one round? And you dont also give JMM massive respect for coming back from near death?


o o o o o o o o just the same old **** going round and round in circles.


dont start trying to say only pac should be there and marquez doesnt have a hope in hell. it reeks of *******ism

 

Marquez is a fantastic boxer, boxing 101, no doubt about it.

Arum says a lot of things, but................

 

Manny was coming into his prime when Barrera and Morales were on their way out. I don't believe this to be speculation, I think the general consensus is that Manny reached his peak during 2007, and this is when Barrera was considered done at elite level, and of course, Morales was at the end of his career.

The misconception is that they are all from the same era. Not exactly true. I'm prepared to admit that Barrera was perfectly fine and great still during 2003, but everything after Morales III was sub-par by his standards. I know this because I've seen the majority of his fights from his days at 122, through to 135lb. :good

I believe had they all been from the same era exactly, all coming into their own at the same time then the H2H match ups would be different.

 

nah it ain't like that, I never disliked Jeff himself anyway, just his love of Valero, he thought I was a hater (which I'm not, just a realist) and now thinks I'm a dick, well, I don't want any1 to think that and would like it to be easier on all of us that's all :good

 

radab, read post 366 to have a better understanding of it. what i am saying is that it is head to head match-ups and fights against fellow ATG and HOF will determine ranking in the list.

just like other sports, basketball, or football. assuming both teams end up with same win loss record, or same goal difference, it is the winner over the other rule which will prevail. same concept of an away goal determining a winner. if you base it in statistics, meaning, you take our all the emotions and arguments and based it on records and numbers. the records would show pac beat all 3. EM beat pac and MAB. Mab beat EM and lost 2x to pac. jmm lost 2x to pac and won once against MAB.

these are irrefutable. we can argue endlessly but we need to base it on records sooner or later. records determine playoff rankings in the NBA or EPL, not emotions, not arguments, not counter arguments.

 

According to your logic, Ray Leonard is higher P4P than Roberto Duran, and Larry Holmes was greater than Muhammad Ali.

 

your cool man. jeff M is sometimes considered a clown here because of his valero nuthugging claims. just like you i am a realist and admit that valero has potential. but when jeff started throwing the claim of valero brutally knocking out any 135-140 fighter, then that ended it for me,

 

scatterbrain - selfkill's answer is completely right. prime for prime we would have had a modern day version of the fantastic four. as it stands we just missed out.

comparing them H2H prime 4 prime and you can really only match up

Morales and MAB
Pacquiao and JMM

and those were about as close as you could possibly get

 

Arum talks to much.

 

you got me wrong, i said wholistic approach. it cannot be denied that win loss record of ali against ATG and HOF is a lot better than holmes and i cannot even phatom why you even raised that issue?

ali-foreman, liston, frazier and a host of other fighters. this is not even debatable that he is better than holmes.

srl better than duran, for me yes. duran had a dismal record against HOF and fellow ATG. he lost to srl, hearns. while srl had excellent wins against them.

 

Fair enough, but whilst me and Jeff can argue about boxing, I don't want to start being personal, which is what it's come to lately with us two guys, which isn't what I come here for. There isn't a lot going on in the Classic at the moment so I'm here at the general, and I want it to be as pleasurable an experience as is possible, and that means no bitchin

 

You disregard the fact that Duran had two careers full as a Lightweight, losing only one fight, before moving up to 147 to beat arguably the greatest Welterweight that ever lived during his prime. Not to mention the array of achievements he gained after that up at Middleweight. Incredible.

You base your rankings off of statistics, I look at the whole picture.

 

no question that we missed it out but it is noones fault. not pac, not jmm, not mab nor em. you got to take what is given you. given lemons, make a lemmonade.

and to insist on it like nallege is beyond logic since a fighter cannot insist on fighting prime for prime all the time.