So Floyd, Jones, Whitaker and Leonard and others had people looking out for them and as you say, "protecting the zero"? The fact that they were groomed from day one is not their fault or a knock against them. They fought men more than capable of beating them and did well.
Please. Floyd has a better overall resume, skills, and everything over Pac...Pac only has 3 big names on his resume, and 2 of them were past it when he fought them. Larios was old, and smaller than Pac and gave him a good fight, and did Pac really beat J.M.M in the rematch. Floyd has dominated his comp. Pac has not...
PACFAN84' has a good point about the "zero" man. It's true that fighters from some countries outside the US start their pro careers much younger, and they are not carefully promoted as most US fighters are. If you ask me, the "zero" part isn't as important as many boxing fights think. For instance, if PBF started lets say at 17 and not 19,5, and had one or two losses at that age, that wouldn't smear his legacy one bit. The "O" isn't everything.
Why do you present this like an argument? Why do you think I was being negative about those four fighters? You are defending them against an attack that isn't being made. Jones and Whitaker are two of my all-time favourites, and I love watching Floyd and SRL fight. Please tell me, where did I insinuate that it was "their fault"? Where did I "knock" them? Nowhere. But the fact is great amateurs in the USA have better management, better promoters, more protection and more money behind them on the way up. That is just a fact. It is neither a positive or negative remark, it's just true. When their opponents are selected on the way up, their management are very discerning in who they choose. A lot of thought and care is taken to make sure their rate of development is correct, that the standard of opposition is raised at just the right time to allow these guys to shine. I have read a bit about early pro boxing in Mexico and Central America, and I know a man who lives in the Far East, and I believe that this system is not mirrored in those parts of the world. There, younger fighters are pitted against each other without the same consideration. They blood raw youngsters and let them learn from their mistakes. They do not screen opponents or study them as rigorously. Therefore, young Mexican or Asian fighters are more likely to emerge on the world scene with some losses, than a well-managed US or UK fighter. And my original point: early career losses for a Mexican or Asian fighter like Castillo or Pacquiao should NOT be the deciding factor in whether their legacy is better than anyone elses, as one poster suggested. Losses like this are not hugely significant in terms of legacy. Do you disagree?
We know, but suggesting that at any point those guys "o" is being looked out for/protected is/was disrespectful to say about fighters like the aforementioned. On any level in boxing, and in other countries...match making is the key. Muhammad is the best fighter ever imo and he had 5 losses. Robinson had 19.
I agree with you to an extent, and I wasn't defending anyone, but the whole of fighters like the 4 you named. This is only true in cases whether many of not. You are talking about 2 countries so far. Who else are you speaking for? Colombia has many undefeated fighters, the Ukraine, Puerto Rico...so many countries produce undefeated fighters. Their programs/management may not compare to the U.S, but they are fine. Chavez rose to what, Ricardo Lopez, Sanchez, Olivares, Zarate...
Am's 5 losses. Pac's 3 losses do not mean anything to me now. Depending on rermatches, and wins, they will be judged accordingly. as I said, Muhammad ali is the best ever imo and he had 5 losses. Robinson is the best pfp to many, and he had 19 losses...
We could make lists of fighters all night long, those who stayed undefeated in Argentina, those who had a few losses in Mexico but became great, those who had a flash KO loss in Japan... The point is, Manny Pacquiao incurring a loss as a very young man when he was fighting in a public hall in the Philippines against someone he probably didn't know much about and when he was not the product of a powerful management and training organization, then losing another fight in Thailand, should not be the deciding factors in a debate on whether he has a better legacy than Floyd Mayweather. That's my point.
pacquiao ain't on mayweather's league cause he is asian and he doesn't have a subtle boxing technique compared to that coward mayweather jr. legacy? if you're a ****in biased american you'd vote for mayweather. look at calzaghe. he is **** on esb cause majority of his fights were in uk. this is a subjective question. period.
stupid analysis. why don't you at least look at pac's resume before coming to a dumb conclusion like this one?
I totally agree. But YOU said in an earlier post that "PBF has never lost", using his "0" as an argument about his legacy. That's why I pointed out the little importance of one or two losses in a fighters early career.
Point taken, but in the ring, there is no one to protect you regardless of who manages you, who promotes you, or where you come from. When ranking the very best, everything needs to be taken into account. Of course we will not penalize Pac or AM for losing early. But will Paul Williams be penalized for losing to Quintana and then beating him in the rematch?
that's why it's a pretty subjective analysis. arguments are unneccessary when it comes to these types of questions, you've said it yourself. i am a filipino, but i don't defend pac just cause we have the same nationality.. it's just that he usually gets unnecessary flaks when it comes to beating 'past prime' opponents, and it's just stupid that posters here think he is overrated without providing any basis at all.