ATG: Who Ranks Higher? Pacquiao or Harada?

Your opinion isn't to be taken lightly.

 

Now:

Then:

... this isn't meant to be flip, SS, but I think that when we diminish accomplishments we need to be have a good memory and look at context. I've been accused of this before and sometimes for good reason. Saying that Leonard lost to Norris because he was shot or that Duran lost to Leonard because he was shot or Hearns lost to Barkley because he was shot isn't necessarily accurate.

...for the same reason you can put Jofre over Harada though Harada beat him twice. For the same reason you can put Pep over Saldivar though Pep gotten beaten by Angott. For the same reason you can put Saddler over Famechon though Saddler got beat by Chico Rosa.

However, ranking Pacquiao as a FW is an open question. His career taken in toto is looking better than the singular parts --a problem with today's tendency to skip around weight classes.

Pacquiao is now as fully a developed fighter as he's going to be. He's in his prime. You are correct in what I'm reading as a critique of his reluctance to stay put and dominate a division. Is that a legitimate knock? I'm not sure.

* Beating Barrera not once but twice is an exceptional accomplishment.

* Morales is, I'd say, the least of that trio of Mexican greats, but he was a fierce competitor and lest you forget, holds a win over Barrera. Morales was stopped twice in 54 fights... by Manny.

* Marquez is a great warrior and a great technician. That last bout really went far in proving this. Featherweights who come up and whip a lightweight of the caliber of Casamayor can only be.

* Look at 2008. Manny, fresh off of his second win over a very inspired Barrera, beats, or arguably beats, Marquez, steps up to the LWs and stops a champ in David Diaz, then steps up and humiliates De La Hoya. This guy beat three solid guys in three weight divisions inside of 9 months.

Pacquiao is a throwback, SS. He's a great fighter and I expect that he will keep right on proving it. A natural FW beating a natural WW is serious stuff. As a matter of fact, it is almost unprecedented....

 

Well, I hope my last post doesn't force you to label me a *******. I believe that he has proven to be great already, but will be happy to critique his style upon request.

 

He's probably got his fishing rod out trying to catch someone. Perhaps trying to wind up you and others like a clock.

 

Not in the slightest..that was a well thought out arguement. The *******s are the ones that go totally overboard and consider Manny the greatest simply because he is one of the few fighters they know.

Im a huge Manny fan...borderline **** but Im nothing compared to these guys.

 

I think expectations and facts need to be separated Stoney. Just because I expected DLH to be at a decent level when he fought Pac, or that people expected Leonard to be at a decent level when he fought Norris, doesn't take away from the FACT that DLH and Leonard were corpses when they entered the ring with Pac and Norris respectively. Their level at the time has to be gauged by how they looked when they entered the ring and not how they were expected to look.

When I predicted a DLH win (a 9-3 win wasn't it?) I clearly didn't expect DLH to perform like he did. I expected him to have more. I don't think Pac beat the DLH I was envisioning to turn up.

There are vitiating factors though in most of these cases, as we shall see.

There is an accepted reason for why this happened though: Jofre was getting a little old and unconfortable at the weight. It was NOT vintage Jofre in there even though he was clearly still excellent. I think most would agree that best on best, Jofre takes Harada though he'd always struggle in doing so.

Weight differentials might have a LITTLE to do with that argument. I couldn't see many putting Pep over Saldivar if a prime Pep got beaten by a natural feather with an aggressive style.

.
2 things here:

1. Saddler arguably won that fight regardless.
2. It was a 10 round non title bout and Sandy was notorious for performing at different levels when the title was at stake.


Now I do ultimately get your point though, that certain fighters can rank over others notwithstanding the fact that they face difficulties with certain styles from inferior fighters, but with Pac there are plenty of fighters I can see him struggling with. It's not a simple one off case

My whole point is that even when looked at in total his best wins aren't THAT great when you consider certain things about them.

I don't knock Pac for going through the weights like he has. I'm not a fan of him for doing so either, but my whole contention is that he has never impressed me that much in ANY of the weight classes he has been through. If there was a division where I thought he would be dominant despite the fact that he didn't stay there long, I'd have a higher esteem for him than I currently do. Alas, not in any one division he's been in do I think he is elite enough to think he is there with the very best of the sport all time.

He was probably a little past his best even by the time of the first fight but I don't begrudge it, that WAS an exceptional performance by Pac. The second time round? No.

Morales was clearly not anything near to the best Morales when he lost to Pac. His first fight with Pac was the last time he performed at anything close to his best standard. Pac beat an ok version in the second fight and a shell in the third.

Marquez is overrated beyond belief. His struggles with Freddie Norwood and Chris John tell me that. His struggles with an old Barrera tell me that too. Casamayor was older than Abraham when he lost to Marquez and had already shown where he was at when he robbed Cruz and was on the way to getting beat by the average Mcihael Katsidis before salvaging himself with an out of nowhere hook.

He is not a bad fighter by any means, I think he is an excellent fighter, very wilful and with excellent skills too, but if Pac was to be the exceptional fighter you're making him out ot be, he should have beaten Juan Marquez (with some clearness about the decision). That he didn't I can't hold Pac in that high a regard.

Context means a lot right there (i.e. most think he lost to Marquez, nearly everyone acknowledges DLH was done and Diaz is a run of the mill lightweight), but any way you cut it he looked good in beating Diaz and DLH. Credit goes to him for that.

Not many could rise through the weight classes the way Pac has, and his ability to perform well over a lot of weight classes is his real bauty as a fighter. I am waiting for him to show me a performance that really stamps his ability in a given weight class though. If he can do that, he will rise immesurably in my eyes. But beating shells or struggling with less than great opponents isn't enough for me to say, yep that's a top 20 guy right there. I still need more proof.

 

Boxers will chase the green...like they have for a long time.

 

The Pacman over rating is insane.

His best win, as someone already mentioned , is the first barrera fight. He performed well.

The rest of his resume are a bunch of well shopworn Mexicans with their best days behind them. He did manage to loose to the running on empty Morales despite getting free shots in the 12 and getting clowned by Marquez I.

What most people don't realize is that those guys were in wars when most of the *******s were not even born................

He has not fought ONE quality , fresh, hungry in his prime fighter past 130.........the coming road will be difficult because instead of Mexican has beens he is faced with some fresh blood now. But God I hope he fights Mayweather , what a Pac beat down that will be. The thought alone is completely disillusional that Pacman would even be competitive.

 

We should also separate assumptions from facts. It isn't a fact that Oscar or Leonard were corpses in those defeats. It may have also been that both Manny and Terry posed real stylistic problems, and were stronger than either expected. I can't say that the latter is a fact anymore than you can say that the former is a fact. We would both be flirting with circular reasoning.

Or, Oscar was unprepared for the style and the power. I don't see much or any deterioration between the Oscar who fought Floyd and the Oscar who faced Manny. The difference I see was the level of aggression in those two opponents.

Okay...

There are competing reasons as to why this happened. Harada had a tough style. Jofre, as you recognize would have always struggled against Harada, that means he may have often lost against Harada...

I could. Pep isn't so widely recognized as among the best ever simply because of his record in his prime. Let's say fighter A is a monster but gets beat by fighter B twice... fighter A goes on to win belts in 2 divisions and is established as an ATG. Fighter B has a losing record. How much can you really penalize Fighter A? Styles make fights.

First of all, I appreciate the historical context you offer and I count you among the premier historians out here. I'd tend to agree about Saddler, less so about the other two. However, those examples were just thrown out there --either one of us could think about it and put down 25 more to show the point.

I think that Pacquaio has serious assets that are difficult to overcome. He's determined, inspired, consistent, strong, technically good and improving, Armstrong-like stamina, power that moves up, demon speed, a solid chin, and a consistent trainer who is also a pretty good strategist with him. It's hard to beat all that.

What say you about Ray Leonard? Roy Jones?

We have a couple of elementary differences. I don't believe that Oscar was shot. I believe that Barrera was great when Manny got him, and still formidable when Manny got him again. I have no doubt that Marquez is an exceptional fighter. Diaz turns a head. If I didn't believe these, I'd be prone to agree with you. If you did believe these, you'd be prone to agree with me.

I don't have him top 20 all-time, not yet... if he continues like this he would be for me... time will tell.

Two questions:
1. Floyd. More impressive or less impressive than Manny?
2. If Manny beats Ricky and Floyd, what then?

 

My God Stoney, that's nigh on Red Roostersim

So can we ever assume a fighter is shot? I mean, we could think up clever ways to deny it all the time:

e.g.

- sure he didn't throw a punch in the fight but that is owing to the other guy not letting him get set
- sure he took every punch flush in the face, but that's owing to the great speed and timing of the other fighter
- sure he couldn't move his legs, but he was always had no movement
- sure he he couldn't land a punch despite facing great fighters throughout his whole career and being able to do so, but that's owing to how oh so great his opponent was
- sure he got intimidated by the opponent's power, despite the fact that he had taken shots by much bigger men that we assumed punched harder, but this opponent is a bigger puncher than all the rest

Whatever. I trust my eyes. They tell me DLH was done.

DLH's reflexes were gone against Pac. They weren't against Floyd. DLH was taking everything flush against Pac, he wasn't against Floyd and Pac was not faster with his punches than Floyd was. He also couldn't move to cut the ring off, his legs looked much worse against Pac. His energy levels weren't there either against Pac. Being befuddled by a style is one thing, not throwing a friken punch the whole fight is another.

Seeing him against Medel, I don't think many would agree with you. Jofre looked sharper there and being that the Harada fights were both so close, it would be hard to assume that that wouldn't give Jofre the edge.

It's all about extrapolating from one style to the style of the other though. If Pep lost to a style which many employ, you will have to assume that many with that style will give Pep problems, and thus his standing will suffer quite a bit. Assuming Pep was in his prime (he wasn't) when he lost to Saddler, I couldn't exactly relegate Pep that much because who exactly has a style like Saddler? If Pep loses to a more stock standard pressure fighter though, then he does get relegated quite a bit (of course if he goes on to beat 10 other pressure fighters of the same ilk we can also assume that he is not likely to struggle with that style).

Do you think Juan Manuel Marquez is also improving? Personally I was more impressed with Pac in the first fight (which I thought he won) than in the second, where he looked somewhat confused and even got hurt by Marquez, who is no great puncher (had the fight a draw). I think Pac has improved his boxing ability a little, but as far as the things that really made him great, his strength, speed, power etc. I do no think they are p4p on the level now that they were when he was a featherweight.

WHat is not great about Leonard's wins against Hearns and Benitez? The Hagler performance itself was remarkable, even though I didn't think he pulled it off. With Duran he was outboxing him handily the second time round and that Duran was still better imo than someone like a DLH for example.

As for Roy, the names on his resume aren't that impressive either, though as of now, I still consider Jones better than Pacquiao given the level of dominance and ability that Jones showed in his prime. I don't think he'd ever struggle with a Morales or JMM equivalent in his prime. Manny hasn't wowed me with his ability as much. I think he will always be vulnerable to solid counterpunchers with good chins and his own chin may find itself vulnerable with the right opponent.

Sure.

Floyd is about as impressive as Manny. Both have had a few struggles and shown some vulnerabilities, but both have great abilities too.

I'd have to see what Floyd and Ricky and Manny himself look like in the ring before I can say. That said, Mantequilla echoed my thoughts pretty well with regards to Ricky in another thread here recently and I'd like to put it down verbatim

That said, I'd want to see just exactly how tough a fight Hatton presents and how dominant Pac will be in light of that. He will certainly get real cred off me if he dominates Hatton and Hatton shows the level he has in recent fights.

 

I have respect for your knowledge and opinions most of the time. Wasn't Pacquaio confused in the first fight as well after the 2nd round? He barely won any rounds convincingly, with the possible expection of one round that you could say he won without doubt over the remaining 10 rounds. He was utterly clueless. Marquez, beyond any reasonable doubt, was landing cleaner punches from both hands. Jabs, uppercuts, straight rights, and body punches. Pacquaio was landing punches, although not very often. It's not even one of those scenarios where you could make a case for him landing the more powerful punches, with Marquez landing more less powerful shots. He was getting a steady going over round after round with a wide variety of punches without Marquez convincingly battering him all over the ring for the three minutes of each round.

You make a case for Whitaker dominating Chavez. I agree. But I don't know how anyone could give Pacquaio anymore than two rounds of the remaining 10. I can't see it for the life of me.

 

I gave Pac rounds 1,2,7,10 and 12 in the first fight. Had the 4th even.

Was he confused in the first fight as well? Sure he was. But he seemed more in control to me than he did in the second fight, and he even got badly hurt the second time round.

I'm giving the first fight another watch right now, to see how impossible it is to give Pac more than 2 rounds after the second :good