If Pacquiao beats Spence, is he the GOAT?

Charles and Gavilan have had 20+ losses over the years but nobody bats an eye about it, nor should it matter. Also, it can be argued that Pac has had better wins than some of the fighters I mentioned earlier from my last posts. Do wins over Bradley or Thurman not make up for his losses, especially since he's been doubted over and over again? Also JMM is considered one of the best fighters of recent era just below Pac and Floyd, arguably the best Mexican fighters out of MAB and Morales.

Again, everything is subjective and everyone will have differing opinions. I respect your opinion and I'm not gonna change your stance on Pac's career. We'll agree to disagree.

 

If SRL isn't top 10 of all time, he is very close.

He has a better claim to a top 10 spot than any other boxer of the past 40 years or so with the exception of Duran.

 

You forgot Pac spent the first quarter of 2021 chasing the Crawford fight? And also tried to make the fight once before?

And that's a lie. I've always said after Thurman, I wanted to see Spence, Mikey, and Crawford. In that order based on styles.

And it doesn't matter. Spence put in an A performance against Danny and beat him up like no one has ever. ZERO ILL EFFECTS FROM THE CRASH. And Spence claims he was only 70% in that fight.

 

Garcia is faded he can still take a punch but he's faded. Spence didn't even beat the version of Garcia who fought Thurman. Garcia honestly hasn't looked great since he beat Matthysse he peaked back then.

 

Duran's win over a prime SRL is greater than Pac's whole life, it was one of the best wins in boxing history. Duran's resume and caliber of fighters he beat and fought are much better than who Pac has faced.

 

It was still a good win. If ESjr was so battered from the car crash, Danny should have beaten him. He still had enough at the time.

 

I agree JMM is better than MAB and Morales I never argued otherwise. I said that Pac never beat JMM clearly and got KTFO by him but at the end of the day JMM would be lucky to make a top 70 ATG list. Thurman is a good fighter but at the end of the day he's not HOF level Bradley will probably get into the HOF as he was more accomplished than Thurman but he did also lose to Bradley. I respect your opinion you're a great poster, nothing wrong with a good debate.

 

SRL often ranks just outside the top 10 ATG which goes to show you how great you have to be to get into that club. His resume is sick when you actually think about it yet he's on the outside looking in.

 

I didn't say it wasn't a good win and performance, but it wasn't his best that was brook. He proved that he could still fight by taking on a big puncher like Garcia in his first fight back from a horrible accident with that said Garcia is not prime anymore. I'm a Garcia fan and wish he would retire I don;t want to see him move up to 154.

 

Even at 42 years old, a win over Errol Spence doesn't make somebody the GOAT when they're not in the discussion as is. For starters, a win in a couple weeks isn't going to trump Robinson's wins over Kid Gavilan, a superior fighter to Spence, in addition to (1) his longer list of victories over superior fighters than the ones Pacquiao beat and (2) the fact that Robinson peaked higher as a fighter.

 

His ability to fight at such a high level for such a long time is in the realm of Archie Moore. If he wins, then, I cannot argue that Manny is the GOAT.

 

Pac is a former FLYWEIGHT.

 

It'd be a crazy accomplishment, but I can't rank Pacquiao ahead of fighters who peaked higher and beat better fighters. I guess this comes down to a value-judgment. Do you put more emphasis on both the heights they reached ability-wise and the fighters (and the quality of the fighters the time of the victories) one defeats them, or do you put more emphasis on divisional climbs, the number of titles won, etc.?

If you put more emphasis on the latter, then by that criteria, Floyd Mayweather should rank above Ezzard Charles, for instance. After all, he was a 130 pounder who defeated really good junior middleweights, one of which would go on to compete at 168 and 175 as the P4P king. And he won titles in five divisions and stayed at the top for damn near 17 years. And that's fine if one does - I just highly disagree with it.

What I put more emphasis on in this example is the fact Charles went 3-0 versus Moore, 2-0 versus Burley, 5-0 versus Joey Maxim, and beat Marshall, Louis, and Walcott in addition to a slew of heavyweight and light heavyweight contenders. Among that list, you have some of the very greatest fighters ever - fighters that rate far ahead of the De La Hoya, Mosley, Canelo, Barrera, Morales, Marquez, Cotto, Bradley, Sasakul, Castillo, Corrales, Hatton, and Thurman's of the world.

When we're getting into GOAT talks, for me, it's the quality of the fighters one defeats, and the ability to show their own quality by consistently and decisively beating the best. I have to put a lot of emphasis on the peak of a fighter, how they compare to others historically head-to-head and based upon the eye-test, in conjunction with their resume. For the most part, Pacquiao beat the best guys of his era at least once (besides Mayweather), but those guys he did beat aren't in the top 10, 20, 30, 40, etc. And while Pacquiao would beat some of the greats, he's not a head-to-head monster on the level of a Robinson, Duran, Leonard, etc. Because of that, I can't rate Pacquiao ahead of guys like Robinson, Armstrong, Duran, Charles, Greb, etc. Regardless, he's one of the all-time greats and it's been an absolute pleasure watching him over the years.

Agree to disagree, though.

 

Pacquiao has been a champion in 4 different decades.

 

Would be very impressive at 42 & definitely elevates him but does it make him the GOAT? Not even close.