Better Resume at 130.. Pacquiao or Mayweather??

Mayweather fought there longer.

 

I think one main difference is Pac has ATG's in his resume down there, while May just has decent opposition with some good names like castillo and corrales but no ATGs like barrera, morales and JMM...

PAC will always rank higher then Mayweather he has his WW career and then his awesome lower weight career with the 3 legendary mexicans... that resume is hard to beat.

 

OMG...Morales, Barerra and Marquez ...

 

Pacquiao beat a faded Morales, a faded Barrera (in lackluster, unimpressive fashion), and I thought the best he mustered against Marquez was a Draw in the first fight. Apart from that he doesn't have anything to write home about. Floyd has the deeper resume there, no question about it. Some very nice top wins as well.

 

Correction, castillo @ 135. not counted in there.

 

I dong know. Floyd fought at the weight longer. I know people mention Marquez, Barrera, and Morales. My question is were Marquez and Morales in their prime? Im pretty sure everyone knows Morales wasn't in his prime. But Marquez is different. Marquez was 34 turning 35 when they fought. How many fighters are in their prime at 34 going on 35? Also Barrera was out of his prime. I completely forgot about that.

 

marquez was not prime physically but 100% prime technically whatever that is worth... he has carried himself into late 30's with pure skill relying solely on pure boxing skill and brain.... with of course some physical ability still there because JMM has taken care of himself very well.. I mean compare JMM of 38 and morales now... Morales looks like the older man and is really the younger one.. but thats what happens when you drain to make weight and bloat up when not boxing..

 

Even if you count Pacquiao losing to Marquez in the second fight, that level of performance against that level of opposition, on top of his other accomplishments, make his time there a bit more valuable, in my eyes. It's close though.

 

Manny got locked to the hall of fame because of that division.
Those faded guys you were mentioning were still solid opponents
They would beat most, if not all, of the elites in the division that time.
As for Marquez, it was a close encounter. The important thing is the 'W'.

 

he fought the 3 legendary mexicans.. not to mention that he fought each of them twice or thrice. beat a prime marco and jmm while he knocked morales twice who most considered to be past prime.. but 4 or 5 years after won a title and gave maidana a great fight

 

The most important thing is the quality of performance.

The concept of the 'W' isn't restricted to what 3 judges think is the right score to give on that particular night. Win or lose, Pacquiao showed great ability in that fight.

 

It doesn't matter that much. Those guys were still lively when Manny fought them. Past the prime is acceptable, but they weren't shot. You can differentiate when someone is a 'has been' and when someone has a pack left to show you some thrill. Those fighters obviously showed the latter. Barrera was lackluster against Manny but he was nothing short from spectacular against Marquez beforehand.

Would you consider Marquez' age to gauge over his primacy? Cause if you would, Morales would be very well be inside his prime based on your logic. He's 28,29 and 30 respectively in his trilogy against Manny so logic says..?

IMO Marquez was @ his peak in the 2nd Manny fight based on performance but I think that's that farthest we can stretch it. He's next fights were good but showed signs of his downslide.

 

this would be like the morales-mayweather argument again. which is better, floyd's longer stay of beating quality fighters like corrales, hernandez jesus chavez, etc... or pac's shorter stay of beating future HOF/ATGs like morales, barrera and marquez?