If Whitaker is #10 All-Time by The Ring, and Pac is NOT Top 10 material...

Uh, actually no it's not. If you can discredit the man then you must have proof. No proof = no discredit.

Pacquiao is #10 All-Time until someone can break down Whitaker's resume and actually compare it, PROVING it's better than Pacquiao's.

 

OK Lacyace, here's why Pac is #9 in my book. I actually want an ANSWER from you afterwards.

Right now The Ring's Top 10:
1. Sugar Ray Robinson - CLASSIC
2. Henry Armstrong - CLASSIC
3. Muhammad Ali - MODERN
4. Joe Louis - CLASSIC
5. Roberto Duran - MODERN
6. Willie Pep - CLASSIC
7. Harry Greb - CLASSIC
8. Benny Leonard - CLASSIC
9. Sugar Ray Leonard - MODERN
10. Pernell Whitaker - MODERN

OK, for Pacquiao to make that list his resume needs to exceed AT LEAST one of them. Now out of the Top 10 I've separated them into 2 eras: Classic and Modern. Clearly you would not disagree with that. Pacquiao would fall under MODERN.

First, fighters from different eras. Very difficult to determine how Pacquiao stacks up against old time fighters like SRR, Pep, and Armstrong since they never had the opportunity to fight in "junior" classes and "super" classes to up their belt totals. Also, Armstrong held multiple belts at the same time (while one could argue Pacquiao held 130 and 140 at the same time since he held both within one calendar year). Robinson and Pep ran up incredible records into the century mark. The counterargument to that is that in this era, elite boxers only fight three times a year if they're lucky. Either way, I will disregard that debate for another day.

Ali and Louis were heavies and only fought in one class, so their legacies were at the mercy of the quality of their competition and how dominant they were, which of course, was outstanding. In that sense we must judge Pacquiao against their resumes only in terms of quality of opposition man for man, which again, is tough to judge because heavies aside from special ones like Ali and Tyson never crack P4P lists, making Pacquiao and Ali/Louis comparisons just as subjective and not as cut and dry to declare a winner. So let's attack that debate another day.

But other modern fighters in the Top 10 like Sugar Ray Leonard, Roberto Duran, and Pernell Whitaker DID fight in these eras, so we can at least OBJECTIVELY measure the Pac-Man against their resumes.

How many fighters would you say at the time of their fight with SRL, they were P4P Top 10? I would say Benitez, Duran I & II, Hearns I, Hagler. How many fighters did he not fight around his weight class that were P4P when he was at their weight classes at that stage of his career? Pryor off the top of my head, and one could argue Nunn toward the end of his career. Altogether that's FIVE fights against P4P comp in Leonard's career, with SRL winning FOUR.

Duran fought numerous fighters that were P4P in their day. Buchanan, DeJesus I & II, Leonard I & II, Benitez, Hearns, and Hagler. That would give him EIGHT bouts against P4P Top 10 Comp, and like SRL, FOUR wins. Duran took on all comers.

Whitaker fought P4P comp in Nelson, McGirt I, Chavez, De La Hoya, and Trinidad. Out of FIVE fights he won TWO. Aside from Meldrick Taylor who was his good friend, and a fight with Terry Norris at a catchweight of 150 that really was more talk from both parties than reality, Whitaker also took on all comers.

In his long career, Pacquiao has fought EVERY P4P Top 10 fighter in and around his weight class available at the time. Barrera I & II, Marquez II, Morales I II & III, Hatton, and Cotto were ALL Ring Top 10 P4P at the time of their fights with Manny. That's EIGHT fights against P4P comp and SEVEN wins.

Again worth noting, this is Pacquiao's 2nd fight at 147 so he still has time to fight Mayweather or Mosley, so I don't really see how anyone could count that as a duck yet (no matter how stupid some of you are on this board).

Now let's talk about titles.

Leonard won two linear belts (147, 160) and alphabet belts at 154, 168, 175. What is great for the people who don't know s**t about boxing is that Leonard fought Lalonde for both the 168 and 175 belts, fighting at a CATCHWEIGHT of 168...and yet no one here discredits SRL. Why? Because those people are new to the sport.

Duran won two linear belts (135, 147) and two alphabet belts (154, 160)

Whitaker won two linear belts (135, 147) and two alphabet belts (140, 154).

Again, Pacquiao's four linear belts (112, 126, 130, 140) to go along with 3 more alphabet belts (122, 135, 147) has never been done before.

Pacquiao's definitely in the Top 10 All-Time, in my opinion at #9 because when you compare the two resumes (his and Whitaker's), he has more accomplishments in quantity (more linear titles, more belts), and more quality wins (evidenced by Pac's 7-1 record against P4P fighters and Whitaker's 2-2).

That's not to say he's done. Or that Pac has earned a spot any higher than #9 or #10.

While his accomplishments are UNPRECEDENTED, even I will admit that the quality of his P4P competition beaten is not as highly-rated as two of the three modern fighters I named. However, Pacquiao's accomplishments against that comp is still better than the guys below the Top 10 and every other modern fighter in the Top 20. It's not his fault there is no All-Time Top 10 fighter to face today. Then again, did Louis? Ali? Whitaker? Yet those guys are the Top 10. Think about that.

To beat Mayweather, an undefeated fighter who was P4P Top 1-2 for most of this decade, would be hard to argue because Pacquiao will have fought ANYONE and EVERYONE. I really don't see how at that point you wouldn't put him in the Top 5.

IF YOU WANT I CAN MAKE THIS COMPARISON EASIER ON THE EYES, BUT FACE IT PAC HATERS. HE'S ALREADY IN THE TOP TEN WIN OR LOSE AND KNOCKING ON THE DOOR FOR MORE. YOU'RE WITNESSING HISTORY!!!