The best fighters you'd take Pacquiao over in any weight class?

Crap. Didn't see that you answered it.

 

Lord help Floyd if he decides to open up against Pacquiao.

It means you can come in the ring at well.... not 147lbs.

 

Starting at 110 and taking on Barrera, JMM, Morales, Hatton, Cotto etc is not avoiding tough challenges.

And this BS about how they didn't avoid tough challenges in past times... Tell that to Peter Jackson, Langford, Wills, Burley etc.

But he's not fighting fighters of the past, he's fighting contemproraries. And those includes guys like Clottey, who comes into the ring at around the same weight that Billy Conn came in against Louis. How is this an advantage for a small guy like Pac?

 

Do you have a problem with your reading comprehension? Where did I write anything about Pac avoiding fighters or tough challenges? Please show me. I made a point about why this era is a bad one. Pac fought the best of his time but Floyd, yeah. But compared to the quality and numbers of opposition greats of the past fought he just can´t keep up because this era is aweful. That´s my point.

Again, I was comparing Pac´s achievements with the achievements of the greats of the past. 24-day weigh-in makes it easier to jump weight and having 10-12 belts per wieght makes it easier to pick one up. Beeing successful is far easier today than the past, even when ignoring the low quality of the era.
Reading comprehension? This get´s annoying.

 

delete

 

I just assumed a reference to Pac, since it otherwise was irrelevant (what does other fighters avoiding tough fights have to do with Pac, when he himself doesn't?). Obviously it was just irrelevant and I was wrong to give you the benefit of a doubt. My apologies.

I just made it clear for you that your point is wrong. Let's say that fighter A starts his career at 130. Most fighters at 130 are, due to weight drain, really around 140 in the ring. He then gradually moves up to 160, where most are around 175 in the ring due to weight drain.

So he has moved from facing fighters weighing 140lbs to fighters weighing 175lbs, instead of moving from facing fighters weighing 130 lbs to fighters weighing 160 lbs - which would be the case without weight drain. How does this make it easier for him?

 

It has everything to do with my point regarding the weakness of this era. But well ... ah, nevermind.

My point was never that it was easier for them to fight but easier to have success.

Let me ask you a question: Would Pac be a 7 weight champ in the 30s?

 

But it is far from new and specific to this era. Actually it was worse in the "good old days". Jackson, Langford, Wills, Burley et al. couldn't have been as avoided today as they were back then.

Of course not. But I haven't cited him being 7 weight champ as his claim to greatness, rather that he have beat the most of the best fighters in an extremely wide weight spread. And that is the same regardless of belts and subdivisions. Had someone beaten world class fighters from flyweight up to welterweight in the 30's we would have that down as a sensational achievement.

 

Please go back to my first post, the one you critizised and read again what I wrote from then on. My whole point was Pac can´t be rated that high due to the shallow era. You critizised that and I tried to explain why I see this era as aweful. This hadn´t much to do with Pac from then on.

btw. Jimmy McLarnin did that in the late 20s/early 30s and he beat better fighters while doing so. He isn´t considered even considered for the Top15 p4p by most, probably not even for Top20. :good

 

Well, I just don't agree with you about that this era being that bad and said as much. It's just a tired cliché thats been around for a while, to put it lightly.

If that's so, he should be. Easy as that.

 

I wish it would be a cliche. Boxing is getting destroyed by the powers who run it in search of finding ways to make more money.
Just compare this era to the 30s. Compare how many great fighters were active then from 135 to 147 and how many there are now. Huge difference.

He beat Fidel LaBarba at flyweight and Barney Ross at ww and inbetween guys like Bud Taylor, Al Singer and Tony Canzoneri. Pac doesn´t compare. And no he is not necessarily. There were so many great fighters that even an awesome fighter like McLarnin may miss out a Top20 spot. People always forget how many great fighters there were.

 

Nostalgia often make them greater. The usual things is to say that the current situation is bad. They did it back then as well.

I do agree that some things have turned to the worse, though. But some things have turned markedly to the better as well. Until the post-war period the playing field was anything but level for blacks for example.

Just imagine that fighters of the caliber of Jackson, Langford, Wills, Burley, Williams, C. Kid etc. couldn't get title fights today because of their skin colour. The whole sport would be declared rotten, and with good cause. No champion today can exclude challengers on the basis of their skin colour - like for example Jeffries, Dempsey and Zale did - and still be universally acclaimed.

I think this is a bigger improvement of the sport than any detoriation that has occurred. Also, while it's still politically corrupt in some ways (Don King - but his influence is on the wane), it's not as bad as when it was controlled by the mob to a large degree. ****, even LaMotta had bend over for the mob to get a title shot.

"The good old days" have never existed.

Yeah, I saw his record and it was truly amazing. It seems he has a really good shout to be thrown in the mix with the greatest p4p.

 

True and not true. True for hw - and ironical enough a black man made it worse - but only partial true for the lower weightclasses. And yes this is a very valid point.

And still Langford, Burley and Williams have a better resume than like everyone around today. Isn´t this a strong indication that the eras were better then? Hm?

Yes it is a big improvement. But the detoriation is much bigger. Again, 17 weightclasses, 10-12 belts per weightclass and a more shallow talent pool - again I challenge you to compare the depth of today from 135 to 147 to then.

Of course not. They are a myth. Doesn´t mean the talent pool was deeper and the fighters were better on average.
You become a master of your craft by practice. This is true for boxing like it is for everything - and no sparring is not fighting. Compare the average fights people had back then to now. There are so many factors to consider.
I wish it would be different but it isn´t. There are great fighters around here that would be able to hold their own in any era. Their problem is that they have a hard time to prove it.

See, and while he was celebrated in his time he wasn´t seen as as special as Pac is today. Just as another very good contender. Damned, people then thought Ross was average.

 

Since they didn't get to fight for the title, I'd have to say "no". I see your point, but it's not enough just to have quality fighters, they also have to get the chance to shine where it most matters - in championship fights.

I don't know if the talent pool is more shallow. Back in the day most fighters were American, and blacks were often kept out. There are certainly fewer North American and Western European fighters today, but on the other hand there are more fighters from Latin America, Africa, Asia and Eastern Europe. So the sport is unqestionably more global.

Skill and ability wise there have been several outstanding ones in the last two decades: Chavez, Whitaker, McCallum, Tyson, Holyfield, Jones, Hopkins, Toney, Mayweather and Pac for example. Their records doesn't stack up to past greats in general because of lesser activity, but in terms of skills they compare with the best of them.

EDIT: You were asking for 135-147 specifically, but didn't name specific periods to compare. I hope you can satisfy yourself with the above answer, as not to make this infinite.

And guys like Jeffries, Dempsey and Graziano who had much lesser records were extremely highly praised. That's why I think that this is an indictment of how skewed contemprorary opinion often is more than anything else.

 

What do you consider a championship fight? Do you consider yesterdays hw fight between Vitali and Briggs a championship fight - personally I don´t?
But you have a point. What do you make out of the black hw title? Langford had it. IMO more worth than a belt is today.

It is more global, that´s true. Let me ask you a question would someone like Sylvester, Berto, Stieglitz and many others be considered championship calibre 30 years ago? 40, 50 and 60 years ago? I don´t think so.

Yes there are. I disagree with the inclusion of Toney though, IMO a very overrated fighter. But personally I always wonder how they compare to the greats of the past due to a few things, 12 rounds and less fights. I don´t say they aren´t great, awesome fighters - I´m a big fan of Chavez, Whitaker, McCallum and Hopkins - I doubt a bit at times.
And the thing is, I think "ability" and "skill" are highly subjective and not comparable criterias.

Hm, IMO Jeffries had an aweomse record. Better than Dempsey and Graziano. Not as good as Ross obviously. Dempsey and Graziano were knockout artists - and Dempsey was quite skilled, read his book if you doubt that - that captured the imagination of the masses with their spectacular styles. Jeffries was just bigger than life.