What does Pac have over Ross in rating.

Cheers mate (is that you pop?)

I think to some extent I go easier on SOME old fighters who I have learnt to rate highly based on the high regard those fighters have had from others rather than from the regard my own research has brought, and there's probably still a fair few floating around in my top 50 like that, but I don't think this is the case across the board, and I can give a fairly good account for why I rank certain olden day fighters higher than others without receiving good counterarguments in return.

Now, do I think I'm being harsh on modern day fighters? I don't think so. I admit that I don't give modern day fighters a pass on their lesser resumes because of the change in climate (more stage management, more ducking, more posing, less fighting) but at the same time, I do value fighters that are able to show more dominance (which is often the case with guys today with their more doctored resumes - moreso than fighters from the past, so that usually gives today's fighters a bit of an edge).

Now regarding Pac -Barrera, I'll swallow that Pac's win was a good win. I don't actually buy into the story that Barrera was in any way past his best, though he probably did underestimate Pac a bit. But that's taking nothing away from Pac. If he didn't underestimate him, we still would have seen a cautious Barrera like we did in the rematch and Pac still would have won the fight, albeit less impressively than he did in their initial fight.

Regarding the fairness of Pac only breaking into the top 50 if he beats Mayweather, well I ask you, is it so hard to believe that there are 50 guys out there that have a better combo of resume, dominance, longevity and character (as I define it above) than pac?

Let me ask you a random question: do you rate Pac higher than say Carmen Basilio? And if so, why?

 

Lost cause, Mr. Springs. BTW are you going to start a new series soon? I've enjoyed your Jack Chase/God of War/Liston/Cocoa Kid articles immensely and i'm curious where you'd go next.

 

Pachilles has good moments. I'm just trying to do the guy a favor.

I'm half-thinking about choosing one more member of Murderers' Row, Bert Lytell maybe, and doing another series. I have a pretty good unpublished essay on Eddie Booker ("Shadow Boxing at the Golden Gate"). I may do more on him to make it a series, I don't know yet. I'm going to New Haven, Connecticut in a few weeks though, to get the New Haven Register from the early 30s just to make damn sure I say everything I want to say on Cocoa Kid. Come January, I'll be writing threatening letters to my fellow voters for the International Boxing Hall of Fame because it's a lowdown shame that he isn't inducted yet. (Hascup -are you reading this? Gimme an Amen.) After the "Just Watch Mah Smoke" series, there ain't no damn excuse anymore.

I'm switching gears right now though. I've been studying Pacquiao's fight films over the past 7 or so fights and have begun working out a "Blueprint" to beat him like the one on Floyd from a couple of years back. Forget what Nazim Richardson said, he's only got part of the answer. I got it all, baby.

 

Lemme see...takes a step(or half step) before punching (like Hagler used to)...Slightly more vulnerable to fighters who stay within the pocket, but move slightly to their own left away from Pac's pure dynamite. (Need a quick jab/or very short hook to offset Pac's new and improved right hand. Mayweather will problably take half steps back, rock back on the right foot and try to catch Pac over extending his punches...Just a guess??? A guy with the monicker JG gave me the first one...the guy forgot more about boxing in the last fifteen minutes than I'll ever know...JMM's plan will still work, but he is going to be a step slower, and Pac is bigger and better now, so he is in trouble. Pac KO 8

 

Well, this is a fair point. Although it is more culturally acceptable nowadays to pick and choose opponents, we shouldn't really overlook it as fans of boxing history.

A Pacquiao win over an undefeated Mayweather would be pretty titanic, in my opinion, considering Mayweather's quality as a boxer, his quality as compared to his contemporaries, and the fact that he is naturally bigger than Pacquiao. I already have Pac in the 30-35 region largely on account of his (as I see it) all-time great weight-jumping accomplishments, which are pretty much unprecedented since the 17 divisions came into effect. That counts for something. Now a win over Mayweather would have a dramatic impact, compared to the impact of other 'single victories' in ATG rankings terms.

I attribute great, great value to certain single victories, ie for me Duran would not be ranked as highly as he is without the Montreal triumph. I think of Pac-Mayweather in the same vein.

Yes, I rate Pac higher than Carmen Basilio.

The reasons for this would be that:

- Basilio was all in all a world champion for 3 years, Pacquiao has been a world champion for 13 years up to this point, with short intermittent breaks due to jumping weight classes.

- Basilio's prime was peppered with losses and draws, Pacquiao's prime has included one hard-fought points loss which was twice avenged by stoppage.

- Basilio won world titles in 2 weight classes, 13lbs apart. Pacquiao won world titles or versions of world titles in 8 weight classes, 38lbs apart, including four of the traditional 8 weight classes, and as far as I know he has won more 'lineal' titles than anyone else in the modern era.

- As far as I know, Basilio was never the consensus number 1 fighter in the sport. Pacquiao has been this continuously since 2008, a 3 year reign which is still running.

- I believe Pacquiao is the first former flyweight world champion in history to win world titles at lightweight and welterweight, as well as the modern ******* divisions of lightmiddle, lightwelter, etc. This is a significant achievement.

If a fighter from the 1920s or 1950s had won a world title at flyweight then later won a world title at welterweight, don't you think he'd be ranked much higher than Pacquiao is on this forum now? And it's not as if Pacquiao cherrypicked belts from paper champions (well, the man on the canvas in my avatar could fit that description actually), Sasakul was the best flyweight in the world at the time, and Miguel Cotto either the number 1 or number 2 welterweight (depending on your view of Mosley in 2009) when that fight was made.

 

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVmmYMwFj1I[/ame]
Pacquiao is too mainstream. Loads of sheeple know his name, the book is so much better than the film because im intelligent and edgy. Barrera and Morales aint **** becase they had a trilogy which was famous. Alfonso Perez wasn't famous and was better LOL if you think not, tell me why? Present a formally structured argument which is ironic or you're a sheeple and dont go to uni.

 

Definitely.

With the slight difference that Mayweather is an inactive old, past his best fighter that was never able to carry a prime Leonard's gym bag of course.

The biggest hurdle I face in not ranking Pac so high is accounting for his weight jumping exploits. But if we're really honest with ourselves, the bottom line is that outside of featherweight he has not beaten a fighter that I would class above the 'good range' (with the exception of zombie DLH). Some ok to good fighters sure, but nothing that would carry a lot of significance were it not for the fact that Pac was 'handicapped' in beating them by being the smaller man. It is significant that he was naturally smaller and beating them, but the question is how much... Unlike most people that rate fighters, I tend to hold back on the praise fighters get through weight jumping. It's more important to me who they beat rather than the weight they are fighting at, especially if they are weighing in the relative ball park of the other fighter at the time of the fight. That siad, some credit definitely needs to go there for that effort. Part of my 'resume' criterion includes weight jumping exploits, but it's not a large facet of that criterion.

Multiply the titles available in Basilio's day by 6 (equivalent to what we have today) add a dash of stage management and I'm sure his reign lasts a little longer. Of course, put guys like Gavilan, Robinson, Williams and Graham in the same division as Pac and I'm sure Pac has a title or two less as well.

Not really.

From the time of his loss to Billy Graham in 1952 to the time he was past prime against Gene Fullmer in 1959 he had 32 fights and the only fights he lost were split decisions to imo top 15 guys all time in Robinson and Gavilan (I'd say more think he won that fight than people who think Pac won against Marquez in the rematch) together with a horrible robbery loss to Johnny Saxton. He had a handful of draws to fighters like Billy Graham and Pierre Langlois and a supposed robbery draw with Italo Scortichini along the way as well. But for the most part he had a very consistent run in his prime.

How many fights has Pac's prime gone? What's his record being during that prime? I bet on a purely statistical level, Basilio does quite well with him, and that's not even considering the names involved, which of course blow Pac's resume out of the water. More of that to follow...

Those are some impressive stats, no doubt, of course, to me that all gets lumped under the 'resume' criterion, and if we are talking resume, I think Basilio can compete quite nicely with Pac actually. The quality of fighters beaten does not compare really and it is only Pac's jumping that can arguably put him in a discussion with Basilio as far as resume goes.

Consider the guys Basilio beat:

Ray Robinson
Ike Williams
Billy Graham
Gil Turner
Johnny Saxton x 2 (should be 3)
Tony DeMarco x 2
Art Aragon
Vic Cardell
Pierre Langlois
Carmen Fiore
Italo Scortichini x 2 (should be 3)

(together with a win he should have had against Chuck Davey and wins against Don Jordan and Gaspar Ortega when outside his prime).

Basilio may have never been no. 1 (not sure if he ever was) but that's hardly a crime considering the depth of the field back in the 50's. Would he be no.1 today? I say yes. I say he actually punishes Pac, Mayweather, Martinez and pretty much anyone else that comes across his way from 147 to 160 and maybe even beyond.

In so far as it contributes to the greatness of his resume, I agree. That feat is diminished to quite a degree in my eyes though when you consider who he has beaten to accomplish that feat.

Yeah most likely, especially if he faced the opposition around in the 20's-50's instead of the opposition in the last 15 years.

Sasakul was a neat fighter, but nothing exceptional really. He basically filled a vaccum left by Too Sharp exiting and Arbachakov declining. A good win for Pac for sure especially given how underdeveloped he was. Cotto and old Mosley aren't much to scream about if we're honest. They did have high standings in the rankings, but high standings in rankings is relative to where the sport is at, and right now it's not in a pretty state imo.

 

I admit I'm a sheeple and dont go to uni:good

 

I'm at work just now, so will have to respond in instalments to your lengthy post.

Will start with this:

Are we guilty of attributing too much reverence to the old guys? OK, the stellar name of SRR is there, and Ike Williams was an ATG lightweight who lost to Basilio when he past-prime and fighting at welterweight.

I know that Billy Graham and Tony deMarco were great fighters from a great era, but should we really treat them with so much more reverence than Barrera or Marquez or Morales?

If we consider Pacquiao's resume which was achieved from 112 to 150lbs from 1998 to 2011:

Sasakul
Ledwaba
Barrera
Morales
Marquez
De La Hoya
Hatton
Cotto
Clottey
Margarito
Mosley

Sasakul and Ledwaba - reigning world champions regarded as the best in their weight class at the time

Barrera, Morales, Marquez - three of the best fighters of their eras p4p, and HOF locks I would expect

Hatton & Cotto - two naturally bigger, reigning world champions who were p4p ranked at the time Pacquiao dominated and stopped them

Clottey & Margarito - two of the better welterweights of the past 5 years or so, daunting physical challenges, both dismantled with ease & dominance

DLH & Mosley - name recognition wins over bigger but declined fighters, the same types of wins you can find on almost any top fighters' resume


Were the likes of Cardell, Langlois, Fiore, etc (I don't pretend to know these guys, just asking the question here) really better fighters than p4p ranked Hatton & Cotto? Or teak-tough ranked welterweights like Clottey and Margarito? Or rated world champions Sasakul and Ledwaba? I really don't imagine they were. I will do a bit of checking up and see if I can learn something about these guys though, as there's no point in debating the issue if I don't know these fighters. Be back shortly.

 

This is awful contrived stuff.

Sort yourself out lad.

 

I genuinely think if we look past the glitz that pac's legacy (again, assume he beats floyd because he'd need that to enter this discussion) holds up when compared across history. Note I said legacy.

He'll have won the world championship at flyweight, featherweight, the two either side of lightweight and welterweight. The lineal champs in the other divisions he fought in were ayala and marquez. He holds multiple indirect victories over ayala and has beaten marquez twice (again he'd have to beat him and floyd here). So we can safely say he'll have dominated from fly to welter. That is an awesome legacy.

His resume will always fall short because modern fighters don't take each other on. But he beat the best flyweight in the world, the best featherweight, the best lightweight/superfeatherweight, the best lightwelterweight and the best welterweight.

Kit posted his best wins and ofcourse they might not compare to others but I think you have to consider the era's. The only men pac could have fought to improve his resume would be ayala, soto and guzman. But he spent this time rematching mab, em and jmm so we can't really complain. When he entered the ww division the top 5 rankings were

Marg
Cotto
Clott
Mosley
Pac

Within 2 years he's dominated everyone on that list. He's beaten all the greats in and around his divisions. His prime probably begun with the mab rematch and is close to ending. But his prime years began with the win over mab 1. Since then he's beaten everyone he fought and has been an established p4p top ranked fighter.

 

I don't really view Mayweather as old and past his best. He's barely lost a round in his last 3 fights, so even though I preferred him in his younger 130lbs days, he is still operating a high level of effectiveness. Once he slips to the point where he gets dragged into difficult fights, I'll call it as being past his best, but I'm not seeing those indications yet. Just seeing the same flaws I saw in 2006, and before.

(though obviously he has never been close to SRL's level, agree 100%)

 

I have to wonder if he put Langlois' name up there just to see if he could make Pachilles post that video again.

 

One day I'm going to invent a boxer and his resume, make a thread, and see if anyone calls me on it before the thread sinks without trace.

Thread Title: Where do you rank Battling Joe Swash?

Opening post: Where do you rank Battling Joe Swash as compared to the likes of McLarnin and Gans?

Win resume:

Tom McMustache
Dirty Dingus Magee
Fireman Jim Pole
Battling Saki
William Pitt the Younger
Grinning Kid Grimason
Spunk Johnson
Meercat Stevens
Wild Bill Herman
Art Vandelay
The Cocoa Bean Plantation Kid
Penny Farthing Phillips
Kid Ugly
Kid Moe
Sunshine Travers
Hurricane Mayflower
Gorilla Jones
Yowling Young Yosemite Kid Dynamite Baby Jay Junior Jehovah III

 

Are you trying to steal my thunder??