It's possible but in losing to that fighter it becomes a matter of debate whether the fighter who beat him truly deserves to be recognized as "second best", even if his resume may not be quite as extensive as Pacquiao's is in this case. Mayweather certainly doesn't belong in the top 20 in my opinion, but a lot of people feel he has the tools to beat and even dominate Pacquiao. Pacquiao has an argument, and that argument would be strenghtened with a win over Mayweather, his greatest threat (and likewise for Mayweather). If they do not fight, it would be a bit of an embarrassment.
Exactly, he's shite and has a skillset that makes German Torres or old Jose Luis Ramirez look like Pea.This is the worst half decade in Welter history imo.A bunch of mediocrities and metrosexual Rican 8 round fighters masquerading as worthy original 8 weight class, top 10 competition, or good champions.I've been saying it for years now. Why Mayweather couldn't bring himself to clean the thing out years ago is entirely beyond me.He could have coasted along against every damn one of them and still do it with ease.
So true... Really is an indictment on Floyd's lack of balls as well. This era of welterweights could have been dominated by a very good fighter, to say nothing of a great one.
Explain to me why you rank him over each man, taking into account quality of opposition, dominance, longevity, weight jumping and ability, please. I agree. Not when that fighter is the only big test around for you at that time to prove yourself against. From Lightweight to 150lbs Pacquiao has not been tested against a great fighter and he needs that, Mayweather is the only man who can provide this test IMO. Duran had already proven himself against Leonard IMO. It is just unlucky there is no other great fighters around, indicative of the times, a smaller talent pool. How can you justify such a high rating though? I have been thinking about it recently, Pacquiao has probably got the best resume a modern fighter can have but even then say compare it to someone like Holman Williams, it pales in comparison regarding quality of opposition IMO. And lacks the depth. It is because of the times but it just cant compare IMO.
In terms of legacy Mayweather has proven himself the best in a division, something Pacquaio has yet to do. Mayweather's been more dominant than Pacquaio who has the losses to Morales and to many got the worse of Marquez. No one rated Pacquaio as P4P no1 and many rated Marquez over Pac until Pac beat faded versions of Mayweather left overs. But yes the fighter who will be remembered no1 will be the victor of their match up.
So you can post more smileys? What do you disagree with in my post, most are factual. Ross and Armstrong don't have great skillsets imo and Barney really showed a lack of heart in their fight. Greb did lose/draw to Bartfield in his prime and he had about 20lbs on him, he has plenty of defeats to the better men he faced but he has 300fights so none of his defeats count atsch
Leonard/Gans look far worse on film, Pep lost a series to the Margarito of his era, Greb wasnt dominant against the best men of his era
He's among the all-time greats: [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Mgczfg3Rv4[/ame] youtube.com/eslubin
No, but he has fought great fighters, a handful depending upon your criteria. Recently, not so much - but then Jimmy Wilde appears at the top end of many p4p lists specifically because he beat bigger men, not because he beat great men. If we look back on the traditional arguments about peers and their relative greatness, they tend to hold a lot of water in the cases where the (generally) more highly regarded fighter fought less competitively than his (generally) lesser compatriot. Think Wills/Dempsey or Burley/Robinson. That isn't the case here. Pacquiao has already proven himself to be considerably greater than Mayweather IMO. Remaining consistent, this is the main criteria. Having said all that, the winner of that one, should it happen, changes their relative placements a great deal. That does depend upon your criteria and how you view weight-jumping. I think we might be at a bit of a turning point in that regard and it might become yet another era-era comparison that becomes difficult, but we both know Greg, if a flyweight fighting in 1915 annexed a title at 154 in 1925 we'd all be creaming ourselves over the footage.
Nice one bro :good You'd have to be a real jerk to hck into that to hack it down. Wasnt me who messaged you on youtube by the way.
:twisted::fire:nono Nope. I would think most would think they are both great fighters on ability. Ross is one of the most well-rounded boxers we will ever see and Armstrong is a superb swarmer who would be hell for anyone. IMO they are both 'better' than Pac. You must be joking. If not, I really do not know what to say. It was more the fact that you completely disregarded heaps of evidence and pulled up the defeats. I could say that Pacquiao was KO'd by two Flyweights that must mean he can't take a punch against Flyweights.
I think the real question we should all be asking ourselves here guys is... can a duck eat an apple? In all seriousness though that was an impressive win by Pac, and I have him in the top 20.