ATG: Who Ranks Higher? Pacman or Hitman?

can't blame them pinoys! they have a hero in pacman. and a humble and good one at that.

who's yours?:hey

 

He beat Hatton. Forget Lineal anything. If Baldomir beat Hatton to win the title then he would be the Lineal title holder. Big deal . IBO title. Diaz at lightweight? That compares with Leonard beating Hagler I guess. I was all in favor of Pacman as a very good fighter when he beat Oscar and I like him as a fighter and all that, the Hatton fight was a good fight, but after this nuthugging and rush to judgement on his greatness, I just cannot agree with Pacman being this great. He beat Hatton who was a great style for him which was cherrypicking at its finest. Why the overrating? I was ok with him being thought of as a future great. I thought the lineal title holding thing was a HBO created marketing thing and boxing fans bought it big time. But if you are going to tell me that Pacman is as great as Hearns, who fought legends and beat title holders and had superfights and really almost rejuvenated boxing in the 1980's with the other 3 greats, well then I have to say Pacman is now being overrated. I like Manny a lot, but when I see people overrating anyone this bad, then someone has to bring up some points. Pacman is HOF but not ATG yet. He has to beat a prime guy at 147 to prove he is really legit at the higher weight.

 

This is directed at your last few posts... not just this one.

First...Get off his dick! Leonard was a shell of himself in the rematch, it means **** all. Although Hearns did win, despite the decision.

You go on and on about Hearns going from welterweight to light-heavyweight, so what? He went up 19% of his initial bodyweight. Pacquiao went up almost 40% of his original bodyweight. Hearns is naturally FAR bigger, yet Pacquaio went up 13 pounds more than Tommy? Well, I guess that argument goes in the favour of Pacquiao, hey? Don't bring it up again, unless you're looking to wreck yourself.

Barrera was NOT past it when Pacquiao beat him. He was still in his prime, and right near the top of the P4P rankings. Number 3 from memory? Cuevas was ranked 5th at the start of 1980. That's a good win, as has been said many times, but the Barrera win is probably better.

Benitez was a very close decision victory for Hearns, and he was a P4P fighter at the time, though he had been inactive all of 1982 after scraping by a blown-up Roberto Duran who went on to lose to Laing or whatever his bloody name is in his next fight! Benitez then went on to get start losing quite often. This could be likened to the Marquez victory for Pacquiao. Although, Marquez was higher in the P4P rankings at the time, and went on to conquer the lightweight division directly afterwards.

Virgil Hill? He was hardly near the top 10 P4P. Quite a good win, but nothing fantastic. I'd rather the Morales, Hatton and De La Hoya victories.

Who are all of these other "quality" wins you speak of?

 

Who said I was butthurt moron? I just said that Pac has a million ****** fans like you that in the end are gonna make him look stupid when another guy like Marquez but faster and stronger comes around and punks his ass lol.

 

polls are made for a reason and numbers don't lie. and as of this writing, pacquiao leads.

either you live with it or you leave this thread if you're butthurt(accdg to danny..lol)!

 

Hearns over Benitez and Duran is better then anything Pac has ever done. Duran was a far better fighter then Hatton, and Hearns KO'd him just as quickly as Pac ko'd Hatton. Duran had just come off giving Hearns a good scrap. Hatton was coming off a win over Pauli Malignaggi and had already shown signs of decline against Luscano.

Virgil Hill was also a 5 time champion in 2 weight classes. Moving up from super babyweight or whatever the hell Pacquiao was at is not as big an accomplishment as going from welter to cruiser. Also a sight better then most of Pacquiaos victories. Including his victories over scrub Diaz and shot AND drained De La Hoya.

1. The first man ever to win four world titles in four weight classes (1987-10-29): from 147 to 154 to 175 to 160 to be the first ever Quadruple Champion in boxing.
2. The first man ever to win five world titles in five different boxing divisions: (1988-11-04): from 147 to 154 to 175 to 160 to 168. The first ever Quintuple Champion in boxing.
3. The first man to win a world title at welterweight (147) and then later win a world title at super middleweight (1988-11-04).
4. The first man to win a world title at welterweight (147) and then later win a world title at light-heavyweight (1987-03-07).
5. The first man to win a world title at super welterweight (154) and then later win a world title at super middleweight (1988-11-04).
6. The first man to win a world title at super welterweight (154) and then later win a world title at light-heavyweight (1987-03-07).
7. The first man to win a world title at middleweight (160) and then later win a world title at super middleweight (1988-11-04).
8. The first man to win a world title at super middleweight (168 and then later win a world title at light heavyweight title (1991-06-03).
9. The first man to win a world title at light heavyweight (175) and then later win a world title at middleweight (1987-10-29).
10. The first man to win a world title at light heavyweight (175), win a world title at middleweight and later win another light heavyweight title (1991-06-03).

 

placing pacquiao inside 100 of the atg list doesn't overrate him at all. he is a legitimate atg in the eyes of many. and pacquiao didn't cherrypick hatton who happens to be the main man at 140.

it's true that styles make fights and going by your logic, pacman's style was tailor made for marquez. but does that make marquez a cherrypicker as well?:hey

 

saying those things doesn't make you less of a ****** as well, knowing how much of a floydette by heart you are. :roflroflrofl

 

Oh please. What exactly about the Duran victory is so great? If you looked back over boxing history, there could not be a bigger stylistic mismatch. Duran was the better part of a decade past his best, 20 pounds and 3 divisions above his best weight, giving up 6" in height and 12" in reach. Conversely, Pacquiao's biggest victories have seen him being the smaller man. Hearns had the size advantage in pretty much every fight. And yes, I know Duran had just given Hagler [not Hearns] a good scrap. But the size difference there was minimal in comparison. I can't believe you actually mentioned Hatton showing signs of decline, without mentioning Duran's decline. Ludicrious!

Yes, Hill is a much better win than the Diaz win. De La Hoya? Nah. :good

And no, Hearns over Benitez is not better than knockout victories over Morales, Barrera... or even his win against Marquez. Benitez was stopped by Davey Moore a year or so after the Hearns fight... Marquez had conquered lightweight a year after the Pacquiao fight. :yep

 

Wow... those are some special accomplishments. :roll:

40% of your bodyweight vs. 19%. I know which is more significant and impressive. :good

 

floydettes. :rofl:rofl:rofl

i would rather be a *******.

loud. vocal and proud. rather than be a floydettes. :yep

 

Funny you mention Leonard being a shell of himself since Leonard picked the fight with Hearns because he thought Tommy was a shell of himself from the Kinchen fight and then Hearns outclassed Leonard when Ray had not had many tough fights to that point compared to Tommy's fights.
I stand by the fact that Hearns fought two champions at lightheavyweight and one of them was Virgil Hill. And those two fights at 175 were sandwiched between Hearns winning the middleweight title with Juan Roldan, who in a lesser era like todays would be champion.
Wilfred Benitez was a great fighter when he fought Hearns in 1982. He was fighting better and training for a change during his 154 point reign and he was only 24 ( same age as Hearns). Benitez beat Maurice Hope in 1981 and then fought Carlos Santos and then Wilfred outclassed Duran just 2 months after Santos. Then he lost his title to Hearns.

Are you comparing Marquez to Benitez or Duran? Come on. Different class. Would Duran or Benitez loss to Chris John?

Benitez outclassed Duran in 1982 and won an easy fight. Duran couldn't touch him in a 15 round fight. Benitez was fighting at his best in 1982, but after that went up too high and weight and that was his downfall..


And yes Barrera and Morales were on the downside when Manny beat them. Barrera was 7 years after his fight with McKinney and 14 years after Barrera turned pro. 14 years! And his fight with Morales was 12 years after Morales turned pro and 8 years after Erik won his first title. The interesting thing is that Morales beat Pacman, and then lost his next fight to Zahir Raheem. After that loss is when Pacman started to beat Erik.
What fighters do you want me to go over with you about Hearns? I can go down the list who he beat. He beat Harold Weston as a young professional and Bruce Curry who was later champ. Stopped legend Cueves and stopped Randy Shields who was a great contender at welterweight in the late 70s and early 1980s. Stopped Marcos Geraldo in one round who went the distance with Marvin and Ray. Tommy also beat the man who was the first supermiddleweight titlest-Murray Sutherland. Beat Doug Dewitt who later became WBO middleweight champion and who stopped Matthew Hilton, who was a very good 154 point champ. Beat Andries who later beat Jeff Harding and Bobby Czyz. And Virgil Hill is a top lightheavyweight. Did you know Virgil Hill had about 28 World Title fights? Defended his LightHeavyweight title 20 times? Not a top 10 lightheavyweight?
Barrera win was not better than Cueves for Hearns. Cueves never had the type of situation which Barrera had with Junior Jones.
I like Manny and he is a good fighter. But Hearns caliber?

 

exactly my point on how great Hearns is .. Tommy was great. I think Manny is a very good fighter and great probably. I am not insulting Manny at all. What I am saying is Hearns career is just much more exciting and impressive.

 

exactly.

 

Pac