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

I expect it to be somewhere between Floyd's performance against DLH and his performance against Marquez. Pac should win 3 or 4 rounds I'd say but not too many over the second half of the bout.

Floyd has a knack of making fighters cautious against him because he is so sharp with the counters himself and I think that will happen to Pac a bit too.

If Pac was a better body puncher or infighter I'd give him a HUGE shot at beating Floyd. But no predominant head-hunter is going to beat Floyd - his head movement is too good.

It's possible, but I think Floyd is likely to adapt after a while and start seeing Pac coming. I haven't seen enough body work from Pac in the past for me to think he will land heavily to Floyd's. If he can effectively direct his attack to the body THEN we're talking.

Fair enough. I'll concede that I think Pac has improved technically a little, but I still think his physical qualities at the lower weights trump his lesser physical presence and sured up movement and technique at the higher weights.

I think this will become a little more evident if Pac faces a truly great jr. welter/welter near their prime, but there isn't one around at the moment (bar Floyd who stylistically may just be a foil for him regardless) to test this out.

For sure mate :good

 

This is a serious thing to ponder ESPECIALLY for those that think that Marquez actually got the better of Pac in their fights, which is not a small minority by the way.

Pac undoubtebly has a better resume overall and has conquered more weight divisions, and so on those fronts he would be greater than Marquez easily, but if you put much more of an emphasis on ability in so far as taking a fighter at their best weight in their best time and pitting them against one another, then Pac cannot really be said to be streets ahead of Marquez.

 

I jsut want to ask something.

Am i alone in scoring the first fight for Marquez and the second one for Pacquiao?

 

Who "got" me? The vast fight-wing conspiracy? Nobody gets me.

I will speak to your sentimentality...

Pacquiao is a throw-back. He's got a serious, serious strategist in Roach who is the ******* son of Eddie Futch, who was there in the golden era with Holman and Burley and the rest of the cast of legends that we both doff our hats to... Manny is in that critical way directly linked to "the days" when boxing was "it" and when boxers as a group were at their collective best.

Without Freddie, Manny would be nothing more than Johnny Tapia.

But he's got Freddie who has streamlined him and given him a superb mind in there. Add to that Manny's athleticism and the plain fact that he's got a very difficult style. A swarmer who carried his punch from flyweightI to welterweight. (An aside: While last night was a great win, Manny showed flaws. Several of them. If I were Floyd, I'd be signing a contract tomorrow.)

Add to that his character. His willingness to take risks, his focus, his ability to relax and adapt and adjust and apply strategy. This guy is the best fighter since Duran and he's shaping up to be Duran with the same ring-fury, a similar, though not as technically-sound a style, though without the demons.

And he ain't done yet.

 

Stonehands, i'm not criticising, just curious. I don't get the Tapia/pre Roach Pacquiao comparisons, not in a stylistic sense that is.

Quality post once again from you though.

 

...I don't want Manassa to be unduly disappointed. Brawls aside, we do agree far more than not out here.

The truth is that Pacquiao isn't near Henry and he isn't near Duran either at this point. People tend to forget that it is likely that neither Morales, De La Hoya, Hatton, or Cotto would have been turning heads outside of their neighborhoods in the 1940s. They may have been stepping stones. I shudder to think how easily Ross would have humiliated Hatton and how much damage Zivic would have done to Oscar's pretty face. Saddler would have toyed with Morales and Cotto may have been about as "great" as Bummy Davis.

Manny, though, hell, he would have competed well among FWs and LWs back then. On the survey, I clicked 20-30. Though he's closer to 20 by my rough estimation, particularly if one emphasizes "performance against larger opponents".

 

Tapia was a high energy, physical guy who fought with great gusto and passion and power. Manny was similar before Roach's lessons.

Tapia could not handle Paulie Ayala. Similarly, without Roach, I don't believe for a New York minute that Manny would have beaten Barrera.

 

Yeah i see what you're getting at. At 115 though i though of Tapia as more versatile than the pre Roach Pacquiao. Sometimes his outside game would look only feasable due to the speed and some might lable that more flash than substance, with his high energy dynamo stuff looking much better for him effectively, as you highlighted. But there were times when he feinted and boxed well showing versatility. The Danny Romero one was a quality chess match which he earned the good way. He's actually my preference for the best 115 pound man bauble but i know that's opinion based.

 

Tapia didn't really lack technical ability. He lacked mental stability. That more than anything stopped him from being a great fighter.

 

Would you say he has any chance against the likes of Watanabe and Roman? I do personally. Like you say though, his life was just a wildcard, definitely can have the non desirable effect.

 

They'd be close fights but yeah I think I'd pick Johnny to beat both at his best. Both Watanabe and Roman are smooth operators, but Johnny has that athletic edge on them which will probably see him impose himself a bit and get the close rounds.

 

Nice insight. I'm off now, up early tomorrow, later.

 

Cool mate, take care :good

 

Right, so it's the same as ranking the fighters. Nobody should rank Vitali ahead of Pac because he would beat him. Essentially, we aren't really looking at H2H all too much in this equation. That's why it gets confusing. P4P isn't even what people are meaning to say.

 

My gripe was the top twenty bit, not Pacquiao himself.

He's got some great wins. But is he greater than Ray Leonard? He's my #21, so I use him as a benchmark. He would rate higher if he wasn't such a snake.

Although I try to be objective, I suppose in a sense I am biased, knowingly, because I believe boxing to be a lot 'rougher' in the old days and more of a challenge for the human psychology and physiology. It took courage to fight as often as they did. Of course, you can only perform as good as your climate allows, but still. I wouldn't expect any top level fighter to have more than a hundred fights these days.

Anyway - how about Tony Canzoneri? Is Pacquiao greater than him? Canzoneri lost a few fights at the tail end of his career, and in between, but was still kicking arse in '35 & '36 at lightweight having started his career as a bantamweight ten years previous. Not quite the jump of Pacquiao, but then he has wins equally as shocking - the 140lbs title, won via one punch knockout over a fellow Hall of Famer, for instance.

Jimmy Wilde? George Dixon? Phenomenons of their times, and the kinds of fighters you can expect to be rated between #15 and 25.

So far, Pacquiao for me is more in tune with Julio Cesar Chavez & Alexis Arguello.