ATG: Who Ranks Higher? Pacquiao or Harada?

:rofl Nice.

 

The only way you can justify this, is by using the actual fight as evidence. However, you could also put it down to being one of the greatest performances ever.

Where is the proof, outside of the fight itself? Losing a close decision against Mayweather? Easily beating a skillful Forbes? The fact that throughout his camp, De La Hoya stated that he was in good shape?

The fight was an obvious mismatch, but I don't think there is definitive proof that is was all because of De La Hoya's ability at this stage in his career. Freddie Roach got it absolutely spot on. Pacquiao is a bad style for any aging fighter, regardless of the difference in weight. He took advantage of this and never let Oscar in.

I'm not nessecarily saying that this is the case, by the way. I obviously accept that De La Hoya is past his best, but to take Pacquiao's incredible victory away from him, by claiming Oscar was a "corpse" is not fair.

If you want to say there is also a lot of evidence that Morales was done, then fair enough. However, you must also accept that Pacquiao was seriously green. Back then, he was further from his prime than Morales was. He was a one-handed brawler, who couldn't throw combinations, had poor footwork and lacked experiance. The fights are four years apart and look at how much Pacquiao had improved by the second Marquez fight. Night and day.

I do think you have a point. It's just too bias to be worth anything though.

 

Pacmans record is better than Haradas, I honestly dont even think it is that close.

 

I don't subscribe to the theory that someone must look shot in a previous fight to be proclaimed shot. If they are in a fight and look like crap, I take it into account.

If I saw DLH at least TRYING to do something in there, and it was failing, I'd seriously entertain the possibility that the opponent was simply too good in what he was doing. When they go in there and show nothing, I'm calling them shot. DLH looked like a corpse. That's how i saw it. I could be wrong, but the evidence (won't spell it out again) was there that he was done.

I think Pac has honed his skills a little, but I don't think he's a harder fighter to beat at the weights he;s fighting at today than he was when he was a featherweight fighting Morales for the first time. I also don't see the big improvement from Marquez fight 1 to Marquez fight 2. I had pac winning the first and drawing in the second and I'm pretty sure Juan hasn't improved from the first meeting either.

I may be wrong, but I don't think I'm being biased.

 

I think we've met in the middle in our discussion about facts, opinions, and opinions with weight when comparing fighters and records.

Just one loose end:

JMM beating Barrera is considerably more impressive than Jones' defeat of McCallum. Considerably better... I'll bolster that up with facts: Mike was about 2 weeks shy of 40 and 20 lbs from his best division. Barrera was 33, and before the loss to Marquez, was coming off a pretty good string of wins. If you discount the earlier Pac loss, he hadn't lost in 7 years before Marquez. I believe that he was strongly motivated for both fights, and had plenty more left than Rocking Chair Mike.

Morales' decline was steep, I'll concede that... but at 30 he was more dangerous than a 40 year old Mike. He still had moments in Pac II. So I cannot agree there, nor can I agree that Griffin was better or even comparable to Marquez. Even physically -Griffin is only 5'7 to Jones' 5'11 and there is no comparison with power and speed. Griffin was totally outgunned and posed a pretty serious puzzle anyway. Jones and Griffin and Pac and JMM? I just can't see it.

I was impressed with Jones beating of Ruiz. I was also impressed with Pac's demolition of Diaz. I'll give you that... but Pac's stugots still dwarfs Jones' overall... give me that...!

 

Agree to disagree here. Mike, even at 40, gave a better effort against Jones than Barrera did in the Pac rematch, where he fought with no intention other than to survive. That Barrera was undefeated for a while leading into the Marquez fight doesn't mean much more than what Mike had done in recent times. He had a loss in 1992 to James Toney in a rematch that I thought he won and then he had a close loss to Fabrice Tiozzo. Barrera looked clearly faded when he arguably lost to Rocky Juarez and looked clearly faded in Marquez match itself. Against Pac, he merely wanted to show that he could go 12, so he didn't engage at all and put up a stinker of a performance that won him no plaudits.

I was referring to Pac fight III not II, hence me mentioning him beating Morales a second time.

Griffin had a cute style though and it worked well with his height. Despite hsi lack of height he was hard to fight. Hence him having wins over James Toney. He was no mug Montell.

Yeah Pac's set are larger, no doubt about that.:good

 

Always a pleasure...SS.

 

At this point, Harada gets the edge, simply because he holds two victories over a fighter who is considered by many to be number one, all time, in his respective division, and moved up to accomplish the feat. Factor in Harada's reign at flyweight, plus his pretty impressive reign at bantamweight, and he shades it, at the moment.

Still, Pacquiao isn't that far behind, and a couple more good wins will catapult him over Harada on my list.

 

pacman at this point.

In no way am I discrediting Harada.

 

Weight drained Jofre who was still more or less a great fighter and better than any of Pac's wins.