From an objective view point. If Manny Pacquaio did beat Mayweather

may if he beats pac... top 20-25
pac if he beats may....top 15- 20

I am also on floyds side of the fence, although 8 different weight divisions, long long record with big names throughout... I think it would put pac higher if he won than if may was to win.

 

Well according to Caneman if Mayweather beat's Pac then he'd be damn near a lock on the top 5 ATG, similarly it would seem if Pac won. But truthfully that's rubbish.

If Mayweather beats Pac which I think would be the mostly likely outcome, given that he's the bigger of the two, I'd say he cracks the top 20 ATG. If Pac wins I'd say he's between 10-15 perhaps somewhere closer to the 10-13 range. But neither of these fighters are doing what Duran did in his peak. Neither is doing what Greb has done, or SRL in terms of opponents. Archie Moore, Charles, SRR, there's a hell of a lot of fighters who fought a lot more often than these guys did and they sure as hell never needed 3-4 years to negotiate a fight. Not knocking either one of these fighters, I think they're great and their great for boxing, but it's a different era and so I even though this is probably as close as we can hope for in terms of a SRL-Duran type fight, this would never reach that standard.

Their ages alone would prevent that from happening.

 

Why don't you just watch some fights on youtube and form your own opinion?

I recently watched Duran -Moore and no way in hell is Pac a better fighter than Duran. Duran was probably the best trench war-fare fighter I've ever seen. He absolutely loved to fight at close quarters.

I've been watching boxing for 40 years, that's all you really have to do, is watch fights

 

No top 10.
Pac or PBF needs another major win in the upper weights (154 or higher) to be crack top 10, and even then I am unsure.

 

Here's the one guy you speak of:

This content is protected

 

Top 15 if he beats Floyd, not top 10. He could make a case for top 10 if he beats Floyd and Martinez.

 

I've been watching boxing for 30 years, 25 of those before Youtube. First fight I ever saw was Leonard-Hearns I when I was 9 years old. Yes, Duran was a great fighter. Even Freddie Roach says he'd pick Duran to beat Pac though he admits he thinks the fight may be more competitve after Pac's last few great wins. As far as oldtime boxers, from what I see on youtube, only Robinson impresses me from what videos I have seen. Kind of hard to gauge handspeed on those old films and this is why I take into alot of consideration older boxing writers and historian's opinions like that of Bill Gallo. They witnessed those great boxers with their own very eyes.

 

No offense but his opinion weighs more than any one in this forum.
I disagree with him but his HoF status and first hand witness to classic fighters speaks volume.

 

I like both fighters, I have Pacquiao slightly higher but Floyd's been catching up. If Pacquiao won, yes he would edge just inside the top 10. If Floyd won, just barely outside the top 10. Though it would have to wait a while (many YEARS) before people finally acknowledge it.

Here I isolate 2 fighters that have markedly similar (but greater) achievements

Duran is the GOAT at lightweight, and is notable for weight jumping to take on the likes of Hearns, Hagler, Barkley. He is typically 5-10 on peoples lists I see.

Armstrong is often rated at #2 for his wins over a plethora of HOFers and most obviously famous for the multiple division championships.

Beating Mayweather would be a colossal achievement for Pacquiao- by doing so he would establish linearity at WW, which would be the 5th division in which he became the man to beat. Now, such an achievement has been diluted due to the expansion of divisions since the original 8, but I believe the 5 divisions should be equal to Armstrong's 3. Not only will he have linear championships in 3 of the original 8 (Fly, Feather, Welter), but also 2 of the "in between" weights at SFW and LWW to make up for the dilution of talent from the main divisions. To match this achievement, while being short a couple of HOFers is great in itself. Also not to mention most have Pacquiao as the greatest Asian, above Harada, Garcia, Villa, and Elorde

Duran created himself as the consensus goat at LW, I'm not going to go into this point because Pacquiao hasn't done that its also what sets the two apart. BUT, the rest of the things Duran would go on to do/attempt to do is also similar to Pacquiao in a sense. Duran would go on to most notably fight 3 other guys who were able to touch the golden trophy of P4P#1, but the results weren't as favorable, barring the single win over the best man of the 4. Pacquiao fought 3 other guys who were also P4P level at the same time in the span of a year and a half. They essentially held almost half the P4P rankings from 2004-2005 officially and this was at 126-130, and not 147 or 160 i.e. less popular weight class and not as likely to get attention. Pacquiao would rise out of that dust cloud and take heads at 140-147, in a "second wind" type scenario, something where Duran just fell short of.

Regarding his resume, really many years from now people will just be looking at the names he fought when he won titles and the names who go down in the HOF. Barrera, Morales, Marquez, Hatton (he deserves it, only lost to the top 2 P4P), Cotto (same), DLH, Mosley <---- these last two were definitely on their way out, but there are many ATGs who fought guys both prime and on their way out. For one example Zivic was supposedly on his way down when SRR fought him, and Armstrong's only win on Zivic occurred after Robinson's (and after two losses to him as well) but hey, people still count it.

If Floyd were to beat Pacquiao I'd have him just outside the top 10. From being considered the GOAT at SFW, and a win over Pacquiao would make him the man at 130, 135 and at 147 twice (the second time being 10x more legit than the first), and having touched being the top dog at 154. He beat Corrales at #5 P4P, JMM at #2 P4P, Mosley at #3 P4P, Hatton at #8 P4P, and Manny who is #2 but touched #1 for a few years. In addition to being a H2H nightmare for many fighters, his career reminds me a little like Jones' and Leonard's (yes I know, a weird combination) but like in Jones' sake Floyd whooped some of his opponents so badly that they never got a chance to be rated highly (Corrales), or in like Leonard, he fought in very sparse occasions. Regardless, his resume had quickly caught up to Pacquiao's because like Leonard, even with so few fights, big ticket wins in a row pack a punch.

I'd talk more but I'm gonna go work out instead.

 

I hate it when people say just "YouTube". It shows lack of understanding of technology.

Old film are often incomplete, bad resolution and poor angles. Even with today's HD video, how many of you watch the fight multiple times in different speeds from as much angles from different broadcasters as you can?

Now try applying that to black and white film with poor resolution, re-compressed countless times before it hits YouTube's not even standard-def quality, limited angles and such.

So stop saying "Watch it in YouTube" as if that is going to give some kind of accurate assessment to the greatness (not so great) if a fighter.

 

are you ****ing serious?

 

Owned. :yep

 

The psychology behind the fact that people tend to be skewed and biased to feats and such that occurred in their earlier days should also speak volumes. It's not coincidence that these old historians for the large part feel the old baseball players were second to none; old football players were tough as nails unlike todays guys. It's not coincidence that your father always had a tougher walk to school or harder day doing chores or life was never better than the "good old days". Not saying there is no validity to what they say, but people have a tendency to be more biased in this manner so I try to watch, learn and judge for myself.

Thing that always strikes me as odd is that everyone knows PEDS are rampant in the sports world and everyone acknowledges they provide athletes unparalleled advantages when properly applied, yet the old guys always seem to be better even with these athletes who have all of these advantages. :huh Unless man has physically regressed it seems rather contradictory to me.