How does the Classic Forum Rate Pacquiao in an all-time P4P sense?

Which win of Pac is better than Armstrong's win over Ross?

 

ricky"The Sun's greatest british unskilled labourer of all time"Hatton.

 

The featherweight title was recognized as linear by the Ring. On what actual basis can one claim this line? It was the WBC title and Barrera never claimed it. Chart the path back through so I can see that Morales was the linear champion.

 

Barera was the lineal champion on the basis that he had beaten Hamed who was recognised as the lineal champion.

 

He may have been recognized as such by the Ring, but I would be interested in knowing in what fight Hamed won the world featherweight championship. To the best of my recollection, he held the WBC title. Did he he beat a fighter who went on to win the WBA title? I could very well be ignorant of something here.

 

Hamed picked up the WBO, IBF and WBC titles.

Lineage has been established on less than that before.

 

Janitor,

Nevermind. I am misremembering something. You're right.

 

No, actually, it was more than that or lineage could not have been claimed. He beat the WBA champion albeit the WBA refused to recognize the fight. This is what it takes to establish lineage in the absence of a linear champion. Like I said, I misremembered.

Forget the IBF and WBO titles. They are meaningless. They are not venerable.

You are right, though not for the reason you give. But that's cool.

 

Naseem won your so called lineage not for collecting alphabet crap but for beating Vazquez who beat the man etc who beat Pedroza.

 

With all this P4P talk, I'm getting more and more confused on what this actually means?

Is it combining the achievements of a fighter and their ability on a P4P H2H standpoint?

Or is it just P4P H2H? In this case top 10 is fine by me.

Or is it just based on achievements? I don't exactly like P4P, and don't completely get it. I'm getting the feel at least 20% of the people are confused by the mythical title and what it means/represents also... Someone break this down for me.

 

What the **** use is the longevity argument when Armstrong fought twenty seven times in 1937 alone? He defended the lineal welterweight title eighteen times...

This is a joke. Quality? **** me, what, Ricky Hatton? Again, seventy three times Armstrong beat end of year rated contenders. That's significantly more times than Pacquiao's had fights. Ten of them were Hall of Famers.

 

It's about coming up with a suitable criterion that make your favourites look good pete.

 

In some ways Pac reminds me of Sam Langford.

Putting bigger oponents in front of him just makes it easier for him to land on them and chop them down.

 

You're right. Hamed wasn't even the Ring champ if i remember correct, but he was the lineal champ, clearly, Barrera beat him and also Morales (officially) before Pacquiao succeeded him as champ.

 

P4P is really a h2h thing essentially, it's a way of comparing fighters regardless of weight, that's it. Of course Sonny Liston would beat Marvin Hagler in a fight, so they invented the p4p terminology in the interest of fairness when assessing how good a fighter is.

But when we talk greatness p4p it's actually a resume and legacy and how good you were combo, so really there's no need to even mention p4p there, you just look at the achievements.

Hope that helps.