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

Discussion in 'World Boxing Forum' started by Sweet Pea Pacquiao, Nov 17, 2009.


Page 4 of 7
  1. asero

    asero Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    17,373
    309
    Jan 8, 2009
    al bernstein and bert sugar disagrees with you
     
    asero, Nov 18, 2009
    asero, Nov 18, 2009
    #46
  2. GDG

    GDG Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,663
    88
    Jun 2, 2009

    Well they're only 5 places apart on my list so it's clearly arguable, and I don't have a problem if Pac is over him...the ts asked for reasons though and I don't think mine are invalid.

    It's also very easy to get excited about these victories at the present time as well, only in time will we be able to put them into true historical perspective. What Cotto does from here could well be relevant.
     
    GDG, Nov 18, 2009
    GDG, Nov 18, 2009
    #47
  3. GDG

    GDG Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,663
    88
    Jun 2, 2009

    I have Saddler over him...and I think you're a little silly criticise a man who had 162 fights for struggling with particular people. The guy has over 100 KO's.

    Also, in refernece to your Arguello comment, though I'm in agreement that he should certainly be ranked below Pac, I don't think being dropped is the reason for it do you!?!?! You could've made a far better argument than that!!!
     
    GDG, Nov 18, 2009
    GDG, Nov 18, 2009
    #48
  4. GDG

    GDG Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,663
    88
    Jun 2, 2009

    Also, Sugar has Dempsey top 10, let's not use him as some sort of evidence that I'm wrong!!!
     
    GDG, Nov 18, 2009
    GDG, Nov 18, 2009
    #49
  5. Rooney

    Rooney Boxing Junkie banned

    7,654
    0
    Jul 31, 2009
    Because fans have selected memories when it comes to boxing and analyzing their fighter, they only want to remember all the positive points about their career as a fighter, and leave out all the negatives points like they didnt happen.

    But as soon as the tables are turned, these same fans want to criticize another fighter HISTORY, while ignoring their fighters own HISTORY.

    Thats called doubled standards:deal

    This is not just about pac, its about any boxer in this sport.

    Fans have selective memories when it suits them
     
    Rooney, Nov 18, 2009
    Rooney, Nov 18, 2009
    #50
  6. Main Events

    Main Events Member Full Member

    489
    26
    Dec 23, 2004
    +1

    However, I personally don't think Cotto will be the same after the Pac fight, just like Morales, Hatton, and ODLH.
     
    Main Events, Nov 18, 2009
    Main Events, Nov 18, 2009
    #51
  7. MattMattMatt

    MattMattMatt Guest

    MattMattMatt, Nov 18, 2009
    MattMattMatt, Nov 18, 2009
    #52
  8. cloud_cyc

    cloud_cyc p4p demon Full Member

    2,802
    0
    Jul 12, 2009
    this is only applicable in the old era of boxing... i bet your ass if as good as SRR is, if he is born in this era, he wont be able to have that kind of record. no single top fighter can fight every month today.
     
    cloud_cyc, Nov 18, 2009
    cloud_cyc, Nov 18, 2009
    #53
  9. kirk

    kirk l l l Staff Member

    71,029
    27,659
    Jul 26, 2004
    so youd have him at number 9? or 10? if hes at 9 doesnt that mean hes taken SRL's spot?

    i can see how you could place him above Whitaker, but not SRL. You make a good post, very good post actually.... but theres just no putting him above SRL at THIS point in time IMO.

    Also, i could be wrong but for the most part i really doubt, and i will go back and check my ring magazines, that mab was p4p when pac fought him the second time, and that morales was p4p in their third fight. Those are my main gripes with your post but overall great post.
     
    kirk, Nov 18, 2009
    kirk, Nov 18, 2009
    #54
  10. Rock0052

    Rock0052 Loyal Member Full Member

    34,221
    5,875
    Apr 30, 2006
    There's an argument to be made for ranking Pac that high, and it's not as if these things are set in stone as fact anyways. Anybody at that level has a strong case to be made for him, so it's all up to personal preference and at the end of the day it's still just an opinion.

    Personally, it's enough of a hassle for me to make current P4P lists. I'm not about to try and split hairs between greats across eras because there's too many great fighters with comparable, yet different, accomplishments. I tried it for awhile and damn near went nuts, so I'll let you guys worry about that. :lol:
     
    Rock0052, Nov 18, 2009
    Rock0052, Nov 18, 2009
    #55
  11. dangerousity

    dangerousity Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    20,253
    2,301
    Jan 4, 2005
    Great post. No nuthugging there, thats just pure facts and an objective perception of greatness.
     
    dangerousity, Nov 18, 2009
    dangerousity, Nov 18, 2009
    #56
  12. dangerousity

    dangerousity Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    20,253
    2,301
    Jan 4, 2005
    I have a simple perspective on this. There have been 10 decades in the history of the sport, Pac is the greatest of this decade, without bias, you could say he would rank anywhere from 1-10. Now even if you were to say this has been the weakest decade so far, he would still be 10th.

    I laugh at people who say he's top 40. I mean c'mon, that's gonna have to hold pure bias towards the older fighters. At worst I have Pac top 20 at the moment.
     
    dangerousity, Nov 18, 2009
    dangerousity, Nov 18, 2009
    #57
  13. Sweet Pea Pacquiao

    Sweet Pea Pacquiao Boxing Addict Full Member

    3,294
    0
    Aug 25, 2004
    I'd put him over Benny Leonard and Whitaker, that's why at #9...not over SRL. Leonard would be at #5 for me.

    MY TOP 10:
    1. Sugar Ray Robinson
    2. Henry Armstrong
    3. Muhammad Ali
    4. Joe Louis
    5. Sugar Ray Leonard
    6. Roberto Duran
    7. Willie Pep
    8. Harry Greb
    9. Manny Pacquiao
    10. Pernell Whitaker


    To answer your questions about P4P status of Barrera II and Morales III...

    Barrera II was still Top 10 P4P. Barrera had come off a controversial loss against Marquez where some observers had him winning, which is why he didn't fall off the Top 10.

    Morales was #9 P4P for their third fight if I remember correctly. Everyone forgets he was ahead for half the second fight and that Pac was only ahead by one point before the stoppage. The Ring took that into account, since EM had gone as high as #3-4 P4P after beating Pacquiao, then down to #6-7 after losing to Raheem (where Ring gave him the benefit of the doubt because he was fighting at 135 for the first time, then to #9 after losing to Pacquiao in the second fight).

    Kirk, I appreciate your posts. You're truly a fan of the game whether you disagree with me or not.

    It's just the other losers on the forum that talk **** and don't back it up that give boxing fans a bad name.
     
    Sweet Pea Pacquiao, Nov 18, 2009
    Sweet Pea Pacquiao, Nov 18, 2009
    #58
  14. Sweet Pea Pacquiao

    Sweet Pea Pacquiao Boxing Addict Full Member

    3,294
    0
    Aug 25, 2004
    GDG, good post. Obviously by my handle Whitaker and Pacquiao are my favorite fighters, but your 3 points are disputable:

    1. Good point but the fact that Pacquiao's jumped seven weight classes lends credence to the argument that aside from 122 and 130, he really hasn't stayed at a weight class long enough to be able to dominate. Now here's my question for you: Had Cortez stopped Marquez in Round 1 of their first fight, Pacquiao would've had the WBA and IBF belts, the Ring belt, and two knockouts over the #1 and #2 featherweights (remember he was moving up from 122). Would that have been enough to satisfy dominating ONE Division like Sweet Pea did with lightweight?

    2. The win over JCC wasn't a win; it was a draw (and yes, I had Whitaker winning 9-3). But you can also argue that Pacquiao beat Marquez in the first fight on the cards because Judge Burt Clements ADMITTED to making a mistake on the first round scoring. But if we read the record books, Chavez and Marquez were both draws. I think that point is negated.

    3. Pernell easily beat every elite fighter in his prime? Well, when is Pacquiao's prime? You could argue Pacquiao's prime is NOW, after beating Marquez the second time and destroying Diaz, DLH, Hatton, and Cotto. Pernell had a DRAW against Chavez (again I know, disputed) and toward the end of his prime a LOSS against DLH.

    If you disagree, then fine. But that's how I would answer your points. Good discussion, man.
     
    Sweet Pea Pacquiao, Nov 18, 2009
    Sweet Pea Pacquiao, Nov 18, 2009
    #59
  15. sweet_scientist

    sweet_scientist Boxing Junkie Full Member

    13,744
    88
    Nov 8, 2004
    No. Whitaker unified the titles and defended them several times. THAT is dominating a division. Pac did neither at 126 or 130.


    But can you argue that Chavez deserved a draw without getting laughed out of the room? You can quite clearly argue that Pac lost to Marquez. That's the difference.

    If it makes you happy we can phrase it like this: Pernell's 'draw' is better than any Pac win, draw or loss by a fair, fair way.

    You might as well say his prime started AFTER the second Marquez fight, because 7 out of 10 people felt he lost that one. :lol:

    LMFAO@the Chavez draw being 'disputed'. What is disputed is whether Whitaker beat DLH. Just like people dispute whether Pac has a win over Marquez. :good
     
    sweet_scientist, Nov 19, 2009
    sweet_scientist, Nov 19, 2009
    #60
Page 4 of 7