ATG Rank: Pacquiao, Canzoneri, Ross, McLarnin

Ross, Canzoneri, McLarnin are all Top20, they even can all be ranked in the Top15, Ross even Top10. Pacquiao is not. Yet.

Ross was a multiple weight champion as well btw. He even held the lw, jww and ww title at the same time for a short while.

 

Ross
McLarnin
Canzoneri

Pacquiao

 

Do you rank pernell whitaker above these guys? The reason I ask is because he fought in the same divisions.

 

Ross = Top 15
Pacquiao = Top 20
Canzoneri = Top 35
Mclarnin = Top 70 for you classic guys who rank him above Pac you might as well rate Mexican Joe Rivers over him as well.

 

McLarnin´s wins over Ross and Canzoneri is leagues above anything Pac did. Both are at least Top20 - I think both are Top15, Ross inside the Top10 at times - Barrera and Morales are lucky when they end in the Top70. Not comparable at all. DLH? are you kidding me, he was more done than the Leonard McLarnin faced.
McLarnin´s resume is far deeper than Pac´s. Ambers, Petrolle, Young Corbett III, Broulliard, LaBarba, Taylor, Villa and I´m sure I forgot some. Those are ALL in the HoF.
Pac beat three fighters that may end in the HoF? McLarnin beat 11 that are in the HoF. No way Pac ranks above him. No way.
Pac´s ranks more like Kid Chocolate.

 

Pacquiao also lost to Morales you know. How does that one work?

And your counting a win over De La Hoya? Pac has loads of great wins, dont know why your counting that circus.

Actually you dismissed McLarnin's wins over other guys for them being at the end of their careers, and you include Pac's wins over aged fighters. Not making much sense here buddy.

 

Canzoneri was pound for pound the best in the world and was a 3 weight champion by 21. Ross and McClarnin are basically equals and beat a host of all-time greats and very good fighters. All these guys are top 20 all-time greats....

This content is protected

...

They fought waaaaay better competition, won all legit world titles and had a great round robin between them. Fought in a great lightweight era with Jackie Kid berg, Sammy Mandell, Lou Ambers, Al Singer, Billy Petrolle, and all of them fought and beat most or all of them

 

great post, his competition level isnt no where near these guys. Yea kid Chocolate is more like it. There is no shame there. Kid chocolate is top 30ish

 

This is a joke right?

Pacquiao is still leagues behind these guys, his resume just isn't on their level

1. Ross
2. McLarnin
3. Canzoneri



4(5). Pacquiao

 

Im have them all pretty close now to be honest...I dont think its fair at all to say Pac is so far behind these guys, I really think he is almost on par now.

Some people just dont have a clue about McLarnin though, his record is almost unparalleled for quality and overall depth. He holds one of the most significant KO wins in history and multiple victories over bonafide ATG fighters.

 

Back in those days, they allowed any belt holder into the hall of fame. Suggesting mclarnin should rank above pacquaio is silly if your only argument is wins resume, mclarnin also lost to mediocre fighters and back in those days everyone fought 100 times. I'm pretty sure jmm, barrera, morales, odlh, are all hall of famers and hatton and cotto have a pretty good shot if they allow ken norton, bobby chacon and barry mcguigian in it.

On top of that, Pac has 4 lineal belts, more than any of the other guys.

 

What do you mean "back in those days"?

The HOF wasnt a legitimate organisation until the 80's Im fairly certain, McLarnin wasnt inducted until 1991 at any rate.

There were less divisions, less belts and boxing was a far more significant sport..so if you were holding a belt then you werent just "any" fighter.

What better argument is there?

Sounds like you are contradicting yourself there. Fighting that often and keeping a winning record is an achievment in itself.

Pac also lost to mediocre fighters. Whats your point?

Well they arent yet but they will be...Cotto maybe not but I understand your point about McGuigan..not that I have anything against Baz, its just I dont understand why he gets a nod over far more accomplished fighters.


McLarnin would have very likely won straps from bantam to welter and every division in between had there been more divisions and more belts to choose from.
You cant directly compare those achievements because things were different...Pac beating guys the calibre of Ledwaba or David Diaz would have been more on the level of McLarnin having tuneups against fringe contenders because there just wasnt the same amount of opportunities for fighters to become belt holders.

 

Yeah but mclarnin has 11 losses in 68 fights, you guys are acting like he got the best of any great fighter he fought, thats not the case at all. They beat him just as much as he beat them.

He's also got like 3-4 losses against journeymen, one of them was considered a savage beating. If you go by win resume and ignore everything else, then 28 out of the 30 best fighters would be before the 1960's. If he's so great, then why doesnt ring magazine rank him so high, they followed him his entire career and they dont rank him anywhere near thier top 10-20 when they made thier list of the best fighters ever.

Pac also holds a win over oscar larios and i'm pretty sure he will eventually be inducted.

Tell me, do you think mclarnin is a greater fighter than sugar ray leonard, marvin hagler, carlos monzon and pernell whitaker? I mean his wins resume is better than thiers too.