ATG: Who Ranks Higher? Pacman or Hitman?

with pacman's achievements (from 106 to 147) i would go for him.

 

Pac needs a final win over JMM (to remove doubt) or Floyd (who JMM is fighting next) to take over Hearns in my personal opinion.

A loss to either of those fighters, as great as they are, (or any loss actually, considering he's in, or close to, his prime) and Manny would be a far way behind Tommy.

It's a kind of catch-22 when rating current fighters against retired fighters. Yes, current fighters have the ability to ADD to their resume by winning fights. But they also have the ability to ruin it, too. Cause let's face it, when a fighter loses, they're rating generally goes down. Especially if said fighter is in their prime (or close to).

 

well pacman is overrated, he was not before, but the way people talk now he is overrated.

 

Of course Hearns would have beaten them, but Hearns was a natural welterweight. Would a featherweight version of Hearns beaten them? I doubt it.

 

:good

 

Tommy

 

At this point I think Hearns has the slight edge but there's not much in it. If Hearns had a better chin it would be no contest.

 

Pacquiao is top 50 ATG, maybe top 40.

Beating an old Oscar and an overrated Hatton shouldn't elevate him to top 30, this is nuts.
Now if he beats Floyd, then I would rank him that high.

 

so now, hatton is overrated? we all know know how hatton rate and we all know that he is a 1-dimensional slugger but we cannot take from him that he was undefeated at 140 and the consensus best at the weight before pac fought him there. if hatton was not yet damgaed from the pac fight, he could still beat any fighter at 140 not named pacquiao.

 

I saw Tommy as number 18 and 26 on lists. Rarely do I see him lower. So it matters what lists you are talking about. Hearns is a greater fighter than Pacman. It is rare to find a guy who did what Hearns did. The problem is that Hearns lost his two biggest fights, but if you look at his wins they are greater wins then a guy like Larry Holmes ever had. Chavez etc. Pacman is not as great as people think. That is what overrating does.

 

Or perhaps... given that he is active, you refuse to realise what he has achieved. What exactly is it that Hearns did that makes him so great in your book? Head to head, he's a nightmare matchup for most. But his accomplishments, aren't quite as good. Yes, he has greater wins than Holmes, though nobody ranks Holmes that high at all in terms of P4P. Chavez? Had some very good wins, and had a greater depth of wins. Not getting stopped in his biggest fights also helps his cause, although he did lose to Whitaker.

But I doubt you'll ever change your mind... given your avatar.

 

I'm not gonna comment on this one. I haven't had much time to really think about it. And I've alwayd held up Tommy in such a high regard that I won't have a problem if he's still above Pac.

Although one thing I do have to say is when we are determining ATG or P4P rankings, I wish that more people would actually use the WINS on a fighters resume to determine where he's at RATHER than who he's fought or anything like that. Fighting great fighters is a great thing but for you to be considered a great fighter as well, you should be able to beat them as well. Just fighting them is not enough. You have to be able to WIN as well. I mean Emmanuel Augustus has a who's who list of fighters in his resume, yet he's not really an ATG fighter, is he?

I see this happening in this thread when it comes to analyzing Tommy's resume, alot of people mention Hagler and Leonard when he actually lost to both of them(granted Hearns IMO won against SRL the 2nd time, but they were already past their best at the time). So I don't see the relevance of bringing up 2 fights he lost to prove that he's the better fighter.

This happens to alot of ATG fighters, most recent of which is DLH. I mean what's the deal? So if I lace up the gloves right now and fight Pac, JMM, B-Hop, PBF,etc etc, I'd be considered an ATG as well simply because I have these great fighters on my resume? What happened to the losses? Doesn't that count for something as well?

 

Its amazing how the excuses still keep coming after every Pac win, eh? So now Hatton is overrated? The guy many people consider as the #1 LWW is overrated? What about the fact that Pac was moving up when he fought him? Doesn't that mean anything as well?