Manny Pacquiao is a sure TOP 15 ATG..

Armstrong should have got the nod against Ceferino Garcia for the 160 belt though, and beat better comp and was more dominant. Plus he probably ranks better head-to-head.

Looking at accomplishments and ranking them on that is all well and good, but Oscar won 6 titles in 6 divisions and he's not even top 60 material. Leo Gamez won 4 titles in 4 weight division, why is he in pound-for-pound ATG ranking discussion? Nowhere.

I know they may be extreme example - especially Gamez - but it's not all about accomplishments. In terms of those accomplishments though the weight-divisions, his resumé, longevitiy, dominance, head-to-head ability across all the weights, I'd say top 30 is fair at the moment.

He's got to beat some very stiff competition to get a top 15/20 spot right now. McLarnin did what Pacquiao did before the world had even been blessed with Manny's existence, and he beat better competition while he done it, and he's probably around 15-25 at best.

 

Surely top 15... Beat Mayweather and it is top 10 for sure, if not more.

 

Numbers mean absolutely nothing. All it shows is you gained your boxing knowledge through Boxrec and Wikipedia. If we are going simply by impressive looking statistics and number-crunching, is Marciano the best heavy of all-time? Is Calzaghe in the top 20? No. Of course not.

 

Why does that matter?

 

Hearns is deffitnetly top 20 on my list,he was the origanator of the weight jumping and he did it by beating real fighters.

 

Exactly when he did it doesn't. But what matters is him being a 15-25 ATG and he did what Pac did beating better fighters.

 

Fair point.. I don't know the man so i can't comment, i just thought it was an odd argument. :thumbsup

 

He's a Legend here!! No need to explain!! Ask anybody here!!

 

Boxrec and Wikipedia weren't around in 1981 when I saw my first fight (Leonard-Hearns). Numbers don't mean everything. Sugar Ray Robinson has 19 losses. Even if you just judge Pacquiao on the basis of the caliber of the opponents he's beaten and how he's beaten them, that in itself puts Pacquiao high in ATG rankings. To have Henry Armstrong that high on the basis of what he did and have Pacquiao outside the top 20 is highly hypocritical. Bert Sugar has Pacquiao in the teens. Larry Merchant said numerous times Pacquiao has deserved the recognition of this eras Henry Armstrong and then some. Manny Stewart, who was highly critical of Manny Pacquiao for many years, has placed him as an ATG along the likes of Robinson and Ali. Are you going to tell me those 3 don't know what the hell they are talking about?

 

real nice racist *****.....:scaredas:

 

Don't fall for fake alt accounts. Put them on your ignore list if you must.

 

Why is it? Look at what Henry Armstrong did. Midget Wolgast, Baby Arizmendi, Mike Belloise, Rodolfo Casanova, Chalky Wright, Barney Ross [greater than anybody Pac has ever beaten by miles], Lou Ambers, Ceferino Garcia, Lew Jenkins, Fritzie Zivic & Sammy Angott on all on his record. That's across a number of weight classes.

If you are talking in terms of 'accomplishments', world champion [the one and only, not belts] at featherweight, lightweight and welterweight, deserved the nod at middleweight against Garcia in their 2nd bout. Fill that in with 130, 140 and 154lb titles if they were around.

Head-to-head, in terms of his ability and what he brings to the table, he arguably ranks higher than Pac across a number of what classes. This guy will go down as a great welterweight, will Pacquiao?

McLarnin beat the likes of Ross, Leonard, Pancho Villa, Canzoneri aswell amongst others, all greats and did it across a number of weight-classes.

It's a shame that in the lead-up to a fight like this I have to be spend my time on here trying to put a realistic cap on a great fighter like Pacquiao and his achievements. He is an ATG fighter, there is no disputing that. He is not where you hard-core fans of him rank him right now.

 

thanks buddy.. they just hate the thinking that one of the greatest fighter is a man from a small island in Asia.. and their pretty boy is afraid of the small guy.

 

Top 40 easy. Somewhere around 35 for me. The fact that no one knew his name until 2004 and he didn't become a well-known boxer until 2006 doesn't help the whole "legacy" argument.

He hasn't impacted the sport nearly as much as many other fighters who were thriving and popular when boxing was one of the two biggest sports in the world. Nowadays, boxing is somewhere between hockey and horse racing.

I'd have a tough time, for example, agreeing with anyone who ranked him higher than Rocky Marciano. Marciano weighed in the 180's-190's for all his heavyweight fights, his posters graced thousands of walls, his fights helped elevate the sport, and he never showed a crack in the armor, his worst showing was the first LaStarza fight, which is a far better showing than 6 of Pacquiao's fights.

Just remember, everybody ranked Tyson a top 3 heavy before Douglas and everybody ranked Holyfield a top 3 heavy before Lewis. Everybody wants to think their era is more important/relevant/special than it really is.

 

And how do you exactly base who is better between 2 different eras so far apart that none of who you just mentioned are probably even breathing air today? Is it by default that since fighters of yesterday fought more often that they will always be ranked higher than today's fighters? It certainly can't be based on fantasy head to head competition? If that's the case they should have closed off ATG rankings after the 1980s. Talk about generational bias.

You still haven't debunked Bert Sugar, Larry Merchant, and Manny Stewart's opinions on where they place Manny Pacquiao. I'm sure you know more than they do, right?

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Lx_DH7mOno[/ame]