If bert sugar and emmanuel steward rank manny pacquiao so high in the all time list,

Can't you read? He wrote "Elite Club of Multiple Awardee of Ring Figther of the Year w/ at least 3". Floyd only won this award twice, in 1998 and 2007.

Good list BTW. Pacman should definitely be at least in everyone's top 20 all time list.

 

I'll give Manny's opinion a second thought. Sugar is a semi ******. Any who who knows the difference between their ass and space shuttle knows his opinion is worthless.

 

I don't give a **** what B. Sugar says about anything. The man is a pathetic lounge act. However, I rank Manny very high because he is a great fighter.

 

Regardless of their opinion, I just can't see his resume better than the usual top 15. Even though his consistency ranks him well above his contemporaries, both De La Hoya and Shane Mosley have single wins over prime opponents that overshadow the best single wins of either Floyd or Manny. Weird to think about, but thoughts like that keep me from ranking him too highly. He's still top 20 though. I'd have him at 15 if he beats Floyd, I think.

 

Barry Bonds should be in everyone top 10 greatest baseball players ever. He's NEVER tested positive. Right Pac?

 

Right now I don't think he has a good argument to be ranked above the following

Fitzsimmons
Robinson
Langford
Greb
Louis
Armstrong
Charles
Pep
Ali
Duran
Gans
B. Leonard
Whittaker
Moore
R. Leonard
Ross
Walker
Burley
Tunney

That's my top 19 and I don't think he can break that list if he retires today.

 

Uhm no. He did test positive. That is why he is on trial - for perjury. For saying he never tested positive, under oath, when the gov't has evidence where he did test positive twice (if not 3 times)!

Not to mention the countless people, including teammates and his girlfriend/ex-wife claiming they witnessed it.


Not quite the same.

 

What about HOF's beat. I'm not going to look at the whole thing and say where he is missing, but I know he can be added in a few of those categories

 

If you see the original source, the list is titled why Pac belongs in the top 10 ATGs and to make a case for it, Pac's stats are compared to those in the top 10 ATG list as compiled by The Ring magazine some years back.

Just like this thread, it really has nothing to do with Floyd.

 

So floyd beating the fighter of the decade, the p4p number 1, and becoming once again a lineal champ at 147 whilst keeping his zero means he still ain't better than pac :rofl

You *******s are in lala land.

 

for me personally to consider him an atg, he needs to take the test, and better sooner than later.

 

Is Buster Douglas better than Tyson?
Yes, that is an extreme example but it is said to make a point. There are countless other examples that are similar.

One win does not automatically make you "better" in a ATG status kind of way over another boxer. Even if you beat that boxer.

I personally think PBF's resume has a significant gap between him and Pac. I concede that beating Pac would be the best SINGULAR win for either of them. Better than Pac beating Barrera I, Cotto, EM II, JMM II or Hatton. But the gap is big enough that I would still say Pac rates higher than PBF in an ATG listing (top 20 vs top 35 for me).

 

I think a lot of old fighters are overrated, on some there isnt even any footage, people just put them top 20 because of hearsay.
Pac will be rated higher in 30 years, I think he is top 20.