More impressive resume, Hopkins or Pacquao, who you think?

Pacquiao easy IMO.

 

He also outclassed Taylors conquerer(proved both Taylor fights were BS) and loss a disputed decision to Cazlaghe. And all the guys you and most people on this site keep refering too, I already touched on above.

 

As far as resume goes, Pacquiao has the better one and it's not even close. Some of that's not Hopkins' fault- Manny came up through deeper divisions (the super featherweight division was arguably the deepest ever), whereas Bernard had slim pickings at MW for most of his tenure (which is why his biggest fights there were against guys moving up). Part of it is Bernard's fault - he didn't test himself and move up until the twilight of his career unlike the other Middleweights of that era (RJJ and Toney)- and once he did, didn't fight a legit LHW outside of Tarver- and his stubborn matchmaking philosophy led to not fighting the RJJ rematch, and a Calzaghe fight in 2002. Winning either one would've been massive.

Manny took more risks in his career, and deserves that to be noted. It doesn't mean Hopkins isn't a great fighter though, because he certainly is too.

 

I disagree completely. First off were not talking about wins or losses, were talking about fighters on their resumes. Oscar was the WBA Middleweight champion controversy or not, Trinidad had two belts as well. Plus BERNARD HAD TWENTY TILE DEFENSES SOMETHING MANNY PACQUIAO WILL NEVER DO!!!

 

And how successful has Pavlik been at SMW? Again this guy was moving up in weight. Credit to Hopkins though but everyone knew Pavlik wasnt gonna do jack **** to a younger Hopkins, only reason people gave Pavlik a chance is because Hopkins was old. Thats why i credit Hopkins for his longevity.

 

hopkins.

 

Calzaghe had 21 defenses, is he greater than Hopkins. Infact isn't 21 a record, is Joe the greatest fighter ever? Hopkins had 20 defenses against B-C level fighters in MW. He lost to an B+ fighter in Taylor twice. Credit for the Tito win...but like I said, he had every possible advantage going into that fight. Just analyse it, Tito stands 0% chance. They could fight 100 times, Hopkins wins 100.

 

Than he gets credit for the victory because he was old and he outclassed the undisputed middleweight champion of the world, something Taylor couldn't do. I just don't like the disrespect hopkins gets. They wouldn't be calling the man a legend for nothing if his career didn't prove that he was. He didn't call hisself a legend, they did. I think too many people on this site get caught up with what Calzaghe has said in bashing hopkins on his accomplishments and use that to discredit him. The funny thing about it is, Calzaghe's credentials is probably the worst for any hall of fame fighter I can think of and nobody has anything to say about that.

 

He would of had every ADAVANTAGE OVER tRINIDAD NO MATTER WHAT WEIGHT THEY FOUGHT AT. And Besides Trinidad carried his punching power up to the middleweight division.

 

Easily Pacquiao.

Hopkins resume is extremely overrated on this forum, many people consider his best win to be over a blown up welterweight.

Pacquiao has defeated Barrera, Morales, Marquez, De la Hoya (yes he was a ghost but it was still at a weight where many felt Pac had no business at) and has now defeated the ring champion at 140.

Pacquaio and it's not even close.

 

And why doesn't Hopkins get credit for beating Oscar? He carried his hand speed, and was tremedously conditoned for that fight. He even had Floyd Mayweather Sr. training for the fight and made the fight very competitive. But yea, your right, Hopkins didn't do anything.

 

I can't believe what I'm seeing. OK, there is no doubt that Pacquiao is a very good fighter. Why is it that all of a sudden after beating a weight-drained Oscar, and Hatton, he becomes the greatest fighter of all time. One of the Mexican fighters he fought were in their prime.(Marquez) Be honest, and one of them even beat him.(non-prime Morales) When I heard the expression *******, it was kinda funny, but now I see why it was said. Manny should open his own Chevron because most of you guys are delusionally gased. He is brilliantly moved as a result of great management. Hopkins beat prime fighters while he was supposed to be the one over the hill. I doubt if Pac would be able to do what B-Hop is doing in his 40's

 

what hopkins is doing is amazing, but we also have to take in consideration that at many times his big name victories such as Trinidad, DLH, and even Kelly they were the smaller man...

Manny is coming up in weight and has fought names that are consider to be the best in their establish weight divisions and has succeeded and even fighting great warriors more than once Morales and Marquez...

tough choices and we could go into argument for days and months, but i'll give the edge to Manny...

 

Right now Pacquiao is the best fighter of this era, clearly.

 

Really good question. Will take some serious thought. Right off the top of my head, I'd say I rate Pacquiao slightly higher on both resume and ATG rankings, but as I say, will need to take the time to properly consider this.

They are the top two of the decade IMO. Both have clearly superior resumes to Floyd.