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

Maybe because of the weight jumping, but both would beat him down h2h imo.

 

Oh yeah... Not as confident with Arguello, however. Angles.

 

Do you think Pac could stand up to Arguello's power, given how hittable he is? Arguello will get bashed around a bit and outboxed, but I don't see Pac taking Arguello's shots for 15 rounds. Especially at 126-135.

 

Well, you don't know. I'd still bank on an Arguello win in a very, very good fight. As you say, he gets bashed around a bit.

 

Sweet Pea is up there with the greatest of the "unhittables" and his chin in unquestioned. However, Pac's offense may be as good as Sweet Pea's defense and I believe Pac has shown very good durability.

All that considered, we are going to the scorecards on this fight and I think Pac's offense is enough to get the points. Can Sweet Pea continually dodge every one of those speedy combinations? Can Sweet Pea land enough on Pac? The robbery against JCC shows how judges may tend to (unfairly?) view an offensive versus defensive fighter.

You may be right, but I am not so sure anymore.

 

Arum said Pac was better than Ali. Arum has to get to the end of a very long line of *******s, although he is the ******* with the most to gain.

However, if Pac goes on to beat PBF, SSM and Williams (hypothetically) his P4P ATG ranking would have to be totally reviewed once again.

 

Pac has made me eat my words. He may even make you eat yours.

I may know F.A. about boxing but I thought Golden Boy would seriously hurt little Pac. Now look at where we are. Where does this end?

This is why PBF vs Pac must happen. IMO they are neck and neck in the ATG P4P rating, at least top 50, they are in the same weight class, they are both active fighters. Stop with all this, Marciano loses to Holmes conjecture. If PBF and Pac fight, we can actually find out the answer to one of those fantasy matchups that we incessantly ponder. We can start answering philisophical questions with this fight. A fight that would cement one's ATG legacy and dent the other's.

 

Objectively rank every fighter who existed based on achievements.

 

I thought JMM edged him both times. The first time could also be a draw but the second time was clearly a Marquez win imo.

 

Let's not forget that Pac was a much wilder, underdeveloped monster at 126 and even last year at 130 against Marquez and Arguello was not plodding, just not Pacman-quick. I still envision Arguellos left hook to the body under Pacs jab and his straight right down the pipe on Manny and doubt he could take it.

 

But let's also not forget that Pac had day-before-the-fight-weigh-in's, which everyone constantly seems to forget. He was already around 130lbs for most of his featherweight fights. There would not be much of a size disadvantage against the like of Arguello and Chavez.

 

Knowingly biased? Well put. And I'm with you. I don't even like to consider guys with less than 50 fights. More to the point here, I don't compare guys before 1920 to the guys after. The Walker Law is my cut off for reasons I probably don't have to explain to you. If a fighter's prime was before that year, then in my mind they were participants in a different era and in an effectively different sport. So, the pool is smaller for me, which means that Pac has less comp.

My list stops at around 16 at this point. After that, it's approximations. My point was that Pacquiao is climbing. I noticed that Duran was at the fight and found it appropriate for figurative and literal reasons.

 

Thanks for the SOLITARY reply there. Most people think of it your way for sure. I think i'm alone on this one.