Manny Pacquiao is a sure TOP 15 ATG..

top 30

 

Ummmm, obviously the era part is left to interpretation and is 100% opinion. And actually there is an easy way to judge eras; judge it by the popularity and significance of the sport in ratio with significance of the given fighter. Boxing was the #1 or #2 sport in the nation through the 1950's. Boxing nowadays is between hockey and horse racing. It is the P4P and the PPV era now, bottom line. So if one were to stay consistent with this logic, Mayweather easily outranks Pacquiao, whom easily outranks Hopkins. One must also consider Pacquiao's losses/draws are much more deflating than any losses in other eras, because in this era, one loss derails careers and can turn you into a "bum." It still remains: Pacquiao, even if known before then, wasn't a "top 15 known boxer" until 2006. So you're telling me that since then, in beating old, old, war torn Morales, Morales, and Barrera, beating Mayweathers past victims de la Hoya and Hatton, and beating the catch-weighted refuses to punch Cotto and Clottey makes him one of the best ever? Come on folks, what you want and what is are different things. Top 40 fighter? No doubt. Top 25? You're criminally leaving out a lot of guys.

 

Bert Sugar also ranks Jack Dempsey & Jack Johnson in his all-time top 10, ahead of the likes of Langford and Charles.

 

Alas, tis a sad day when TommyV is giving you so much knowledge and you don't want to listen.

 

If I'm not mistaken he has Marcel Cerdan ahead of Charles too.

 

You're talking like the United States is the only nation in the world and the only nation that matters. Thanks for pointing out your bias. Boxing has always been very popular in Mexico, Latin America, the Philippines and the rest of the Asian boxing nations, which comprise of the majority of who Pacquiao has fought and has held world titles. Just because the United States doesn't produce as much fighters in the lower divisions and have never given that much attention to the lower weights doesn't mean those weight classes are lacking in world class talent.

 

Yes he does. Cerdan is his #23, Charles incredibly one place behind, all the way down in #24. Other highlights, Chavez & Marciano ahead of Ross and Charles aswell. John L Sullivan is ahead of the likes of Burley, Carlos Ortiz, Jones Jr and Fitzsimmons. I'm not normally one to criticise lengthy-P4P lists because I know how incredibly tough it is, but I am when it's clearly biased or little to no effort and thought has gone into it. It looks as though he's jotted down the first 100 names he could think of, gone onto random.org and let it randomly organize it into a list for him.

 

And you are saying this because you were there when SRR, armstrong were fighting?

Those numbers covers several parameters, not only win coulmn. Do your thing and apply those to Calzaghe's resume and see how he stacks up or even Mayweather's.

That is why Marciano is not as highly regarded because his numbers don't compare to those ATG.Besides, those numbers are comparison to proven ATG's.

Pac's numbers are simply comparable to the ATG.

 

Tommy, you are startin' to come across, just a wee bit, hardly so's you'd even notice , but still, just a wee bit pedantic.

(I wouldn't say pretentious nor pompous, but there's a slippery slope there, so you need to be careful. Take heed of Trixie's gentle jab back in post # 94).

You do know that lists such as those under discussion are subjective. And having just started Uni, I'm sure you're well aware of the implications of subjectivity in matters such as rankings.

There is disagreement over what to include in the criteria, and even less agreement as to the weighting of the criteria.

Some look hard at head to head, some put great stock in the nature of the victories (close, decisive, KO etc.) , and some scrutinize the losses to an unhealthy degree.

Some look at the age of the fighter, or the weight span he covered, etc. etc.

And some limit comparisons to a more manageable span of eras.

There are those who would shudder to see Lennox Lewis on a list that contained Sam Langford. Not that the Boston Tar Baby wasn't a marvel, but comparisons are just a tad difficult across such a timespan. Reports and word of mouth become somewhat like chinese whispers.
Why not Jack Broughton or Jim Figg ?

Such lists are fine and dandy as a hobby, and they provide nearly as much entertaining discussion as what one might do with a massive pools win, but you must remember that they are not rigorous, mathematically provable (though some have tried !) propositions.

Each to his own.

There would be general agreement among most that SRL was greater than Davey Boy Green (Hope Redrooster isn't around) but whether he was greater than Hearns could be debated. And measuring him against his earlier great namesake makes the subjective nature of the enterprise even more patent.

Bert Sugar holds views on the rankings that are clearly at odds with your own (and mine). And while age and experience are not the sole determinants of expertise here, he has been following the sport for between six and twelve times as long as you have.

Much of that time professionally. So his views have some arguable validity.

Now, there's nothing wrong with compiling these lists, or even including boxers from bygone centuries, but you should bear in mind when you encounter debate, that there are no right answers, just opinions.

Some more educated than others, but still, opinions.

And if you 'talk down' to those you consider misguided, you could wind up appearing as tiresome as some of the more strident pedants who occasionally subject us to their 'expertise,' both here and in the Classic Forum.


But I'm confidant you're too sharp, too aware, and too socially adept to end up in such company.

Regards.:good

 

top 20 for me right now but he'll be top 10 for sure if he wins tonight and goes on to beat Floyd.

 

He jumps ten spots from one fight ?

 

Oh, you're too generous, you must be a *******!

 

And now

 

Don't think so. He will be lucky to get by Algeri.