Best of the this Era???- ESPN

pacDbest al time 10 are:1)pacman
2)pacman
3)pacman
4)pacman
5)pacman
6)pacman
7)pacman
8)pacman
9)pacman
10)pacman tied w/marquez

 

Funny thread. PacDbest is best poster of this era! I can't believe people still take this guy seriously.

:rofl @ pea for asking what his top 10 all time was.:nut Think of the top 10 filipino fighters ever and that would be it.:yep

 

Everyone has seen that list, it's the 80 best of the last 80 years, meaning they don't take guys like Langford, Gans, Fitzsimmons, Barbados Joe Walcott, Wilde, etc into consideration.

And they are pretty inconsistent as is. Either way, what happened to your argument? You said you'd replace one of the names on my list(or Ring's list, either way) with Pacquiao. Do so.

 

Hate to burst anyone's bubble, but outside of little message board "cliques", most boxing experts (and tv analysts, etc...) are gonna rate Floyd Mayweather as the best of this generation. Plain and simple.

Jones before that.

Whitaker before that.

That's how history will see it.

But yeah, we're all boxing fans and everyone has opinions. So everyone's entitled to theirs.

 

Why is my source "not legit"? Because I don't follow what the limited mainstream public believes? You must have the tiniest brain of anyone I've interacted with. And no, we won't keep the debate to that unless you do what you said you would, which is to find a place for Pacquiao in my top 10, or if not mine, then place him above someone in Ring's top 10. Is that "legit" enough for you?

 

I hate posters with junk like this. Oh well.

 

Pac, by EVERY legit source around town, was unanimously voted as p4p #2 or below for the past 5 or so years.

So how can Pac go down in history as being greater than the unanimously voted p4p #1 (which was floyd mayweather)?

If Floyd fits somewhere at the bottom end of the top 40, then surely Pac fits somewhere below that?

Going by LEGIT sources, of course.

No? :think

 

Everyone I mentioned has a far better wins resume than Pacquiao. Only a simpleton like yourself would rate someone highly based on numerical record without taking into account who they actually fought. The guys I mentioned fought all the best of their time for the most part and have far higher stacked resumes both in terms of quantity and quality than Pacquiao.

Sorry, but in the grand scheme of things, a resume consisting of Morales and Barrera(both past their primes), Marquez(whom he arguably never beat), Ledwaba(who's simply not that great a win), and Sasakul(who was beating him badly prior to the stoppage) just doesn't stack up to a guy like Ross's or Leonard's resume.

As far as video proof, it depends on how far you go back. Pre-40's is where I draw the line for the most part in terms of modenr technique, but not in terms of ATG status. If a boxer was dominant at the beginning of boxing, he rates with me because of his dominance and accomplishments for his time. Even still, Pacquiao doesn't rate above any of the modern guys in my top 35 based on video footage. He's a very flawed fighter technically and would get handily beaten by a good number of fighters at every weight he has fought at.