Any one who has Sweet Pea in their top 20.....

See this is tricky.
Most historians like Bert Sugar are very biased towards old timers but wait!! PAc is getting that buzz, hes being mentioned now in this select company, Merchant, Steward, other writers, google it (whether we like it or not).

The same thing I doubt would be bestowed upon Floyd even if he cleans out the WW div. Theyd say that Floyd has nothin on Lamotta

But with Pac theres almost this underground movement maybe because of the way he creates excitement and he wins in devastating fashion, a throwback fighter taht makes it easier for old timers to create space for him in the All Time Lists

 

In the words of my late grandmamma...

"Oh my word, help the child Lord"

 

Kill yourself. Now.

 

No need for any detailed responce, because you are a moron. Pea didnt hit Chavez.

[YT]WcXtxaualiM[/YT]

Clown. Thats called making art with your feet and fists.

Oh and Sweet Pea is rated higher then Pac because he beat better fighters, was more consistent, and many feel he didnt lost his first fight until he fought Tito when he was completely shot. Only morons say otherwise.

 

Let's put it this way, did Pac around the same time in his career fight Too Sharp Johnson to get the ass whipping he undoubtedly would have got? Did he fight anyone decent at bantamweight? Did he fight Chris John at featherweight? Did he face the best lightweights out there? Nope.

So you think the decisions against Chavez and Ramirez were legit?

As for Chavez not being any good at 147, well he weighed in at 142, that's 2 pounds above a weight he dominated for 4 years. It wasn't as if Whitaker beat him with his greater strength. Julio simply couldn't catch him. Would have happened at 140, would have happened at 135.

As for the DLh fight, Pea arguably lost it, but still more people than not think he did enough to win.

Pac beat an ancinet Hoya, an ancient Morales, a good and then an ancient Barrera and arguably lost twice to Juan Manuel Marquez. How in the hell does that translate to being better than beating guys like Chavez, Nelson, McGirt (who I think is a better fighter than Marquez) and Vasquez (who I think is better than Hatton)? Let alone arguably beating a prime DLH.

The day Pac beats a guy on the calibre of CHavez is a day we haven't seen yet.

How about this: Chavez is greater, by far, than anyone Pac has ever beaten.

How about this: Nelson is better than anyone Pac has ever beaten.

How about this: Except for Barrera, Buddy McGirt is better than anyone Pac beat at the time he beat them.

How about this: Prime DLH is better than anyone Pac has faced.

How about this: Whitaker DID NOT arguably lose in his prime. He was robbed. Pac, has arguably lost in his prime, as well as actually losing.

Want more? I can dig out some more, let's see if you can respond to these things though.:good

 

but there is no flyweight/bantamweight champ in history that had success past 126 division. pac has not only garnered success but historical significance as well

dont get me wrong, pacquiao is still a cotto/mosley win away from being in the same bracket as sweet pea. he is getting there

 

Reasonable post.

 

It's a historically significant achievement, but all the same, I don't think it should go all that far in greatness considerations.

I mean, if you want to claim it as a significant achievement, should we also consider it significant that he lost to Singsurat or drew with Agapito Sanchez? Not really. Pac wasn't in his prime by that stage, and was still developing. So, the Sasakul win was a good win for a young, developmental Pac, and that's about it.

If we want to talk about a prime Pac, well then we have to start talking about a featherweight Pac. Pac started hitting his straps at 126. Thus when someone asks at what weight is Pac a natural at, I'd say he's a natural feather. For all intents and purposes he is a featherweight who has had some good success at higher weights, although the fighters he has taken on at heigher weights (for various reasons) have not been all that outstanding. All the same he has dominated them, which is an awesome feat.

 

pacquiao was still in his pre-prime at 126...he won 3 titles in 3 divisions as a pre-prime fighter...

also name a pre-prime ATG that dominated/beat a prime ATG. (pac-mab 1)

 

I actually think Pac was at his best at 126 asero. The Barrera win is still imo his signature performance. And it was against a better opponent than a rickety DLH or a one dimensional Hatton. I also think he did better against Marquez the first time round than he did in the second (had Pac winning the first fight, drawing the second). Pac has looked good of late, but the competition has not been as good, despite the opponents being big names.

 

i also feel tha JMM is a better fighter now than 6 years ago when he fought pacquiao the first time....pac-jmm 1 is a pre-prime ATG vs a pre-prime ATG....

 

We are seeing alot of things that we havent seen in boxing..There are several reasons.

One fighters are cutting alot of weight to fight at much lower weights, weights that pre late 80's would have never been attempted. Oscar fighting at 130 and Pac fighting at 106. If you actaully look at manny he has gone up in fight alot but I dont think that it was because he wanted to, and every time that he goes up he looks better. The same was true with Oscar. If your fighting at too low a wieght it makes you weak, then moving up in weight isnt that impressive if your really a bigger fighter to start with which I think pac was. And I know that Oscar was.

Being small is like Williams fighting as a middleweight, were as people say that he is hugh, Willimas didnt even cut weight for his fight at middle he has to eat up to the fight and still hasnt come in at the limit.

 

what oscar has done in moving up was also done before by armstrong, duran and now mosley...but to have success past 126 coming from a flyweight champ has never been done before