ATG: Who Ranks Higher? Pacquiao or Harada?

This is a fight Ive debated to the death..and Ive seen it quite a few times now.

Rounds 2-12 in that fight..JMM was the better fighter, won more rounds and showed a ton of heart.

But not enough to turn around the first round deficit...I wont ever be convinced otherwise to tell you the truth. I had Pac clear by 3 points, Marquez won the rematch and thus far has showed he may have Pac's number. Thats why I am desperate to see a third fight.

 

Scoring boxing is a funny old game, as you well know SS. The chances of you changing your scorecard and making Marquez the winner are rather slim. I'd probably be the same. :good

I could watch the fight another 20 times and would still score it for Marquez every time. I've watched it enough to be convinced.

 

It was a close fight, I still think Pac edged it, so no surprise there.

Tre 4th which I had even I could see going to Marquez, and the 7th which I had going to Pac I can see as being even. Rounds 8 and 9 were very close to even rounds as well, and I would be inclined to call the 9th an even round. The 12th was also pretty close, though I think Pac edged it.

 

For now, Harada no doubt. But Manny if he can pull out some more good wins.

Winning titles in many divisions does not a better fighter make. Harada beat Jofre twice. That says it all really, those wins are of a higher calibre than all Pac has achieved combined.

THUS FAR!

 

awwwwww man! That's just not true, circular_scientist.

I would be the last one to argue that Ali wasn't done against Holmes or Berbick or that Robinson wasn't done against Archer or that Griffith wasn't done against Minter. But was Lewis done in Rahman I? Was Leonard done against Howard? We take these on a case-by-case basis.

You say it is "a fact" that DLH was done against Pac. I say it is not a fact. It is an assumption, even a worthy assumption, but I'm just not convinced that Pacman wouldn't have beat the DLH who fought Floyd. Not at all. I think he would have stopped again -only later.

Perhaps.... But consider this: Pac is almost as fast as Floyd, but the punches are stuttered more and he has an effective way of confusing guys by throwing a couple of more shots when you think he's done with the combination... the angles are confusing and his strategy was designed to neutralize Oscar's hook. Oscar didn't expect the power and got ambushed.

I said Harada may have beaten Jofre earlier. THAT is a fact.

We agree here. We should consider things in toto and factor in off nights, where in the career he is, etc.

Thus the point. Pacman can't possibly be effective at JWW as he was at FW (which I believe to be his natural division). He's winning anyway, although his relative strength and power are diminished. Duran was outsized and often outgunned by everyone since 1980. Greatness is determined by overcoming odds -by beating other great or assumedly greater fighters (Pac: check), by dealing with distress (Pac: check), by beating bigger, stronger guys who hit harder (check!).

Many will tell you that it wasn't Duran who showed up at New Orleans -but his flat brother, Raul Duran. The Hagler fight is the single most controversial fight in recent memory -for many reasons. Hearns II is very controversial as well. I believe that your critique of many of Pacquio's wins strain as many gnats as the critics of those. Not only that, but they ring familiar throughout history.

This is surprising. There is a wealth of criticism about Roy Jones -particularly his reluctance to face serious competition consistently (9 "active" years between Toney and Ruiz), many downplay the Toney win (I'm not one of them) because of Toney's coming in flat after weight issues.

Jones' isn't as fundamentally sound as Manny in terms of technique. And a Marquez or Barrera and possibly especially a Morales would have destroyed a featherweight Jones. What Barrera did to Hamed should give you pause. I would say that a FW Jones would have a far easier time with Manny than the rest.

Pacquiao fought the best of the featherweights seven times and then fought a belt holder and the Golden Boy. Jones and Floyd are cherry-pickers in comparison.

Okay, but the spectre of circular reasoning is there for you. Can you see it?

In any event, I think that we are both singing different songs here. The crux of the issue is how formidable we see Barrera, Marquez, and Morales as and how dangerous the WW DeLaHoya should have been to a natural WW. I see Pacquiao's victories over any 3 of them as far more impressive than what Jones has done and what Floyd has done. You don't... there's our fork in the road.

 

I think there's a consensus about what the case was in Lewis-Rahman I (mixture of underestimating and under-training for an opponent combined with a vulnerable chin) and Leonard-Davis (rust and coke). Think it's pretty clear what the case was with DLH-Pac too, but we disagree there.

I find it hard to believe that Pac beats the DLH Floyd fought at 154. Was quite a different fighter in there for mine, but again, we disagree there.

I accept the style argument for Pac's success, but that is a secondary factor for the outcome as I see it.

'May' is a rather ambiguous word in this context and the import of the statement is contained it what that may connotes, but yeah sure, Harada 'may' have beaten Jofre earlier.

:good

Can't deny that. I can deny the quality of the guys at the time he fought them though, and that's where we differ, as you acknowledge.

Be that as it may, he still has a dominant performance over Benitez (no I don't buy that I only trained one week crap, he ALWAYS undertrained) and Hearns. Those were class performances and speak for themselves. Ray's the wrong man to interrogate for lack of quality wins.

Jones was somewhat reluctant, but I think his resume gets downplayed a bit. I don't think, for example that someone like Montell Griffin is that inferior to a JMM really, as shocking as that might be to some of Juan's devotees. Griffin had skills and was an excellent fighter for a short while.

What evidence is there that Morales or Marquez or Barrera would beat Jones?

Heck, Barrera couldn't beat Junior Jones, let alone Jones Junior! He did a nice job on Hamed, but Hamed was a poor man's Jones by far. Jones does not get plonked on his ass repeatedly by a fading Kevin Kelley. Morales and Marquez both will have hell catching up with Jones, who not only was lightning quick, but was elusive as well. I can't say Morales's performances against Raheem (though Erik was clearly faded) or Juan's against John fill me with any confidence.

Wasn't Diaz a cherry ready for the picking? DLH was over ripe and ready to be plucked. Manny hasn't proven he's a legit welterweight until he beats guys that are currently at the top of the welterweight rankings. DLH proved not to be one of them.

I don't think so. I have a stringent criteria for Pac to meet if he is to get my praise, but it is possible. I don't think I'm precluding him from proving his greatness to me. I have to see what each fighter presents though before I can honestly place it.

If Floyd comes back and looks a shade of his formerself, why should I pretend that Pac beat a prime version of Floyd?

I think I am intelligent enough to make an educated assumption as to where a fighter's abilities are at WHEN i see them in the ring. Not beforehand - that much is already clear.

That is our fork indeed.

 

Be assured, I am not drawing conclusions in any of those individual examples (although I'd be inclined to agree with you on those paricular questions). The only point is that there can be differing perspectives.

How about style and strategy? Heh.

The point is a simple one. Harada may have had Jofre's number, like Angott-Pep, Leonard-Duran, Jones-Hopkins, etc., etc.

Ray has high quality wins, I wouldn't dispute that. He has a glorious loss as well in the Duran fight too. But some of those wins are not as spectacular upon a closer look, just like his "earning" 2 belts in the Lalonde fight looks deceptive on paper.

....

There isn't the slightest shred of evidence either way as to what the hell a FW Jones would do. I dismiss these out of hand usually but you opened the door with your take on the same.

Has Pacquiao made a virtual career out of cherry-picking? Pretend that the three Mexicans are as fierce as I say they are and take another look at what he's been doing since 2003!

I have been convinced utterly of your intelligence for quite some time already. So I'll trust you when the time comes.

 

More like the Robinson of his day, not DLH. Jofre was an alltime great...the "greatest that you've never seen" or "the greatest ounce for ounce". Twice beating Jofre like he did keeps Harada at the top, but Manny can change that before his career is over.

 

The 4th you had even. Holy, I'm surprised at that. Clear Marquez round IMO. I'll stand by what I said, Pacquaio won one round convincingly after the second. I can't give him three rounds. Not because I'm a Marquez fan, as I let my head always rule rather than my heart. How I feel about your scoring with that fight is probably how you feel about someone giving Chavez 5 rounds of the Whitaker fight or possibly scraping out a draw. Got to mind, someone could have the Whitaker-Chavez fight 8 rounds to 4, yet someone else maybe reckons two rounds Whitaker got were marginal and turns in the other direction and it ends up 6-6. People are out there who think it was closer than me and you.

 

Sure, everyone has an opinion. I happen to take some of mine as fact, but ultimately they are just that, opinions (with good reasoning usually to back them up).

Pac's strategy was good, though I'm not sure DLH was thinking Pac would fight any other way. He didn't exactly fight in a different manner than he has in the past.

I think there's a good chance he may not have, which is not to refute the point, but I think there are possibilities and probabilities that can be contained in the word 'may' and Harada beating a prime Jofre is more a possibility than a probability. So he may (possibly) beat Jofre, but I would say he may (probabilistically) not.

There's a difference, I'm sure you'd agree between saying the sun may rise tomorrow and saying I may win the lottery tomorrow.

Some fo his wins have asterisks next to them, definitely. Overall his results have a solidity though.

It's fun to speculate but it's a pretty open question.

No he hasn't but still, let's take Jones for example, is his taking on the likes of an ancient Mike McCallum any different from Pac beating Barrera a second time, or Morales a second? Is Jones taking on a Montell Griffin THAT much different from Pac taking on JMM? Is Jones fighting a Ruiz ANY different to Pac fighting a Diaz? Heck Jones has some other decent fighters on his resume during his 'reluctant years', like a Virgil Hill, so cherry picking or not, Jones has done ok.

Nice of you to say mate and the feeling is mutual of course :good

 

I'm pretty sure it's easier to find a guy that thinks Pac edged the fight than it is to find someone that thinks Pea-Chavez was a draw or that Julio got within 2 points Robbi.

A lot of the rounds of Pac-Marquez I were close, and there can be divergent cards, but at least there is an argument as to who won that fight. There is no argument really in Whitaker-Chavez.

 

If there was no arguement, Whitaker would have won the fight officially.

 

Replace the word 'argument' with 'corruption' and I'm there :good

 

Ok, "A lot of the rounds of Pac-Marquez I were close, and there can be divergent cards, but at least there is an argument as to who won that fight. There is no corruption really in Whitaker-Chavez. "