What does pac have 2 do 2 be the p4p best of all time??

well if he manages to go back in time

fight Leonard at 147
fight Napoles at 147
fight Robinson at 154

and beat them, he should be recognized as Greatest ever p4p

 

hell i think p4p ranking are bull****

 

Nothing he can do with these generation of fighters. Beating Mayweather will push him further up, but who else can he go after after that. Only way i see him getting that is....keep moving up in weight and winning like he is now.

 

I don't know why people are so obsessed with this. I don't consider any boxer the best of "all time," each fighter brings different accomplishments to the table that others haven't

 

:good This^

****-A-List..

 

I agree with this.

 

I WISH I COULD HAVE SAID IT LIKE THAT:thumbsup

 

WELL SAID:good

 

TRUE:good

 

You are spot on... The generation of fighters at the present aren't the generation of fighters of the 80s for example...

Hatton for example isn't in the top ten at 140 ever, proly not even top 20.
Hoya wasn't the prime Oscar of 9 or 10 years ago.
Cotto isn't the great boxer many people think he is.
Mosley is 38, old enough to retire.
Margarito isn't a great one either and I don't think he will be ranked high at 147 ever.

The only boxer that can help Pac is Floyd. Floyd himself has the same problem... even if Floyd wanted to fight for his legacy and redeem himself, he wouldn't be able to do it because the boxers aren't there to accomplish such thing.... even if Floyd beats Margarito, Mosley and Pac that won't help him much.

 

B/C people have to find a way to argue and they figure that this is a good way....:yep

If you take a look at their ATG list you could see the differences.... and the funny think is that probably many of them never actually prepared any list, they just copy from others or historians and then they come over here and say "this is my top 100 atg".

Just imagine the time that a person would have to spend to prepare such list.... the time spent analysing each great boxer ever existed to come up with such list....

You will see some posters who have never seen a boxer fight, but they have the nerve to rank him... I am talking about boxers that retire 20 years ago for example.

 

Beat Floyd, Mosley, & PW. Then wait about 40 years, and we'll see how his career looked

 

Very True

good posts

 

no I don't. Something is missing in him that Barrera and Morales and Pacman had. Quality of opposition and wins. I think he got Barrera and Pacman at good times and he was on to fight Pacman, but in reality those 3 are the greats. Marquez is Hall of Fame maybe, but not ATG in my mind. He lost to Chris John. Fought Barrera late in his career. The Pacman fights are his claim to fame, and he never beat Manny on paper. What gets him to be all time great? I do not think he is in the other guys class. Barrera on the other hand fought Pacman, Marquez,Morales,Tapia, Kelly, Hamed,Jones and the list goes on and on. Morales fought Manny ( and beat him), Ayala, Kelley, McCullough,Jones, Zaragoza etc etc. I am not sure why Marquez is rated so high. Maybe because he gave Manny tough fights, but he didn't win them. That is why I think the Mayweather fight with Marquez does not indicate anything to how Manny will do with Mayweather. Manny is better and faster.

 

People are too critical of guys in their own time and the fighters of the past take on a kind of mythical status. 10,20 or 30 years after his retirement I can see people looking back and having him rightfully or wrongly as a #1, as long as he keeps winning his next few fights (or how ever many he's got left).