Oh, that's funny. I'm sorry, Pakkuman. I for some reason just glazed over Spence and only replied thinking of Crawford. My bad. He'd be in my top ten then, yes.
To answer the question, Pacquiao can't be the GOAT even if he beats these guys because Pac at his peak didn't reach a high enough level. Don't get me wrong, Pac is my favorite fighter ever. But he didn't beat Ray Leonard. He blasted out a prime Marco Antonio Barrera and Cotto in their prime. Two very high level fighters, particularly MAB, but they are not Ray Leonard. So on that basis he cannot rate over Duran. He's the greatest fighter of my lifetime (was born in 1992) only RJJ comes close. If he beats Spence and Crawford he gets a nice boost and they would be great fighters to add to his resume, but again they are not Ray Leonard.
But I was told Ezzard Charles was that past it guy that Marciano was gifted in a fruit basket, not one of the greatest heavyweights of all time who conquered Joe Louis (and probably should have been champion when Marciano first challenged for the belt).
Yeah, the guys insane. Someone who'd be considered a pretty skinny MW (like seriously he's the size of James Degale) was the undisputed HW champion, beating HOFers left and right, and made 8 total defences. This man beat prime Archie Moore THREE TIMES and Charley Burley twice. Jersey Joe Walcott twice (should be 3 times) and about 15 other ATGs. Joe Louis not withstanding due to age. There's nothing Pacquiao can realistically do to surpass him.
I don't think Charles was straight-up better than Ray Robinson, but his list of victories might well be more impressive. He's firmly cemented in the top five, and barring some absurdly amazing fighter coming around in a future absurdly strong era, I really don't know if his spot in the top four or five will ever change in my lifetime.
Weight divisions matter. If Inoue fought and KO'd Pacquiao at 147 next, that victory would be greater than a Duran victory over a prime Ray Leonard.
All that’s doing is overrating his opponents. I mean it’s all relative. Joe Louis by today’s standards is shite, he’s slow and flat footed. Ali would have white washed him. He lost to achemlling who really was nothing special. I generally put pre 1960s fighters in the corner, the boxing world wasn’t big enough, it wasn’t a global affair. It was an American one and heck the American lost to a German guy. The likes of Archie Moore could have been a journeyman today. The dots need to connect. I’d say for example if Archie Moore beat Ali and Charles best archie Moore then we have relative comparison to go by. Connect the dots for me, how do we compare these guys to more modern fighters? It’s like we can get a feel for how good Joshua and fury are relative to Tyson/Lewis because they beat Wlad, a guy considered the equivalent to Vitaly who was near equal to a past it Lewis. So something tells me Joshua is just below Lewis based on the circumstances or around that level.
Pacquiao is already a legend of boxing. Cleaning up the division at this stage would be the icing on the cake of a great career. I don't think he can beat Crawford and Spence now though, a prime Pac would be a different story.
Pacquiao would lose to both guys so all a bit academic. He still has the 6 career losses and 3 knockout defeats as well as his numerous achievements so not sure it makes much difference.
Rankings are imaginary so you could literally place him anywhere you want. I don't see him beating either. Both guys are longer, stronger and just as skilled if not more so
