can any fighter in modern history become one of the greatest, if not the greatest?

:rofl at maneuverings of a ******
I didn't know they were capable of doing that

 

1. Ray Robinson
2. Henry Armstrong
3. Willie Pep
4. Sam Langford
5. Harry Greb
6. Muhammad Ali
7. Roberto Duran
8. Benny Leonard
9. Joe Louis
10. Ray Leonard

Pacquiao has a chance to break that list, sure. But he has to fight Floyd first.

 

Bail out? Of what? Your not existing argumentation? You need to try harder, my little friend.

 

Ro ho ho... lmao. **** you.

 

If people can't realise pacs greatness that is sadly there loss, to call some p4p all time is crazy and its all opinion anyway.

Lets all agree pac is a great and enjoy him why we have him.

As for his all time standing you will probably have to wait 20 years after his retirement for him to get his respect.

Basicly this alltime p4p is a load of bollox anyway diffrent times boxing is now a tottaly different animal now. :deal

 

Good post, but lets be honest, Henry Armstrong didnt dabble in these catchweight scenarios. Still, Pacquiao's a great fighter, and a certain figure that boxing NEEDS to keep the game revitalized. Pacquiao's a phenom, and the day he retires, whether it be from a loss or a win, will be an incredibly sad day for boxing fans.

 

You people are just not realising how many great fighters there were. Take Jimmy McLarnin for example, he did what Pac did before Pac did it. He beat an atg flyweight in Fidel LABarba and an atg welterweight in Barney Ross. And he beat atgs in the weightclasses in between. He also didn´t have that many fights. 68. Most people don´t have him in their Top20. So, why would they have Pac when they don´t have someone else who did the same but beat better competition? That doesn´t mein either wasn´t great because there´s no doubt both are. The thing is there were so many great fighters. Gloved boxing has 130 years of history with hundreds of thousands of boxers competing during that time, belonging to the Top30 should be quite an honour and achievement, not?

And btw. I said it in the past and I say it again, we are honoured to see a fighter like Pac today, they became rare and he is a real throwback.

 

I dont necessarily abide to the argument that historical fighters were worse, either technically or physically. At least since the 50's.

But, I do think that Mayweather is the best defensive fighter of all time, and Pac's record speaks for itself. I have no problem with these two being ranked in the top 20, and the winner of a fight between them being ranked in the top 10. Mayweather could be ranked higher that his talent deserves, based on his achievements which I feel, are hugely impressive, but still a little pedestriann considering his talent. A foray up to MW for example, would have put him closer to SRL.

In fact, if Pac beat Mayweather, particularly by KO, I think he could legitimately claim to be the GOAT. Mayweather is just that ****ing good, coupled with Pac's achievements I dont think anyone could argue the world has seen a better fighter.

 

Leonard, Pernell and Pacquiao - will fit in well in "any era" people wished them to have lived, so they can throw those 3 to the likes of Armstrong, Pep, etc. Those 3 can hold their own just fine.

Sadly, there's a golden rule in GOAT / ATG: You don't get to crack in ATG 'til 10 years after your retirement. You don't get to crack in Top 10 'til you're 30 years retired. You don't get to crack top 5 'til you're 50 years retired. Bull**** like that.

 

That´s bs. Duran is ranked in the Top10 by most and the Top5 by some and he retired in 2003 ...

 

BS, look at Louis, SRR, Ali, Duran and so forth.

 

You need to learn more boxing history. Definitly. Watch Willie Pep or Nicolino Locche and you will stop thinking ;ayweather was the greatest defensife fighter ever - although he is up there with the best. The only chance for Pac to be ranked Top10 would be KOing the winner of Martinez-Williams II and beating Mayweather. Even then he wouldn´t be Top5.

 

Roy Jones Jr came pretty close to breaking into the elite old school in most ppls eyes.

 

Well, I agree about some eras, but I have to say I was watching Hagler's career the other day and ... those middleweights are just better than our era of middleweights. More conditioned, busier, faster, technically sound. Why are they so quick with such high work rates? Most of them are about 60-8 or so by the time they get the title shots, of course there are exceptions, but the fighters work up the ranks and don't get shots on promotional selectivity, at least at that time in the middleweight division. Also, nowadays athletic guys are attracted to other sports and boxing has lost its mainstream appeal. Since when is a slob like Brandon Rios considered a potentially great athlete?

Having said that Pac is competetive against fighters at 140 in most eras, I feel, and yes, the older fighters don't seem to be as good as most modern ones, but I do feel there is a significant decrease in talent from the 80s and 90s into today because of "members only" promotional bs so we only see fighters picked for greatness on TV because of appeal - guys like Ortiz and De Leon and Rigondeux are given tv slots because of perceived appeal, but are they great? Did they earn their shot like Hagler or Pac? Pac is one of the few guys who just burst onto the scene as an opponent and wound up being way way better than advertised in every way. He earned his shot and took it and he is a real fighter who won every step of the way just like the fighters of the 80s and 90s.

Lets be honest the older guys had to earn their places and fight their mandatories too. Guys like Duran, Pac, Leonard, Hagler, Whitaker, and Robinson did fight everybody in front of them and for the most part beat them. Pac has challenged himself, and this is something that does not always happen in the modern age. Most other people have not earned their places in the modern world of boxing.