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

Henry Armstrong is at number 2, I'm speculating because of his ascent up the weight classes. He's won titles in 3 of the 8 original weight classes. Pacquiao has won titles in

This content is protected

of the original 8 weight classes. How can Pac be out of the top 10 then when comparing his career with Armstrong? Is it a matter of just fighting more like the legends have? Quantity > Quality?

 

I just appreciate the fact that we're watching a legend in his prime. I've bet against the guy numerous times and lost based on myself and what the experts are thinking. If he beats Floyd, he's very close to top 10 atg. He's been steamrolling great fighters since adding that right hook as an actual weapon.

 

Of course Pacquiao's resume will look better than Whitaker's. Whitaker was routinely robbed throughout his career. Pacquiao would have a hell of a time landing a single punch on the greatest defensive fighter of all time in his prime, though.

 

1. Sugar Ray Robinson
2. Henry Armstrong
3. Archie Moore
4. Muhammad Ali
5. Joe Louis
6. Bernard Hopkins
7. Marvin Hagler
8. Pernell Whitaker
9. Manny Pacquiao
10. Floyd Mayweather

 

LOL, me a JMM nuthugger? That's hilarious. If only you knew.

And by the way 7 out of 10 is being GENEROUS to Pac. I reckon the ratio was even worse. Especially amongst posters that can actually reason logically for their position.

BTW, I had the second fight scored a draw.

 

Look, I'm not going to try to argue an all time list here.

But I do find it funny how everyone these days is using "numbers" to judge fighters, particularly Pac and Floyd and how many titles and divisions they've gone through.

"Pac's won titles in 4 of the original 8 weight classes, and henry armstrong has won titles in 3". So they have to be similar, right?

Now don't get me wrong, Pac's resume is awesome. But has he ever beat anyone in the top 50? Back to the OP, Whitaker has. Not saying that makes him better (I believe he is, but that's another thing), just making the point (irregardless of the draw, mind you).

Who would be ranked highest on an all time list on Pac's resume? Oscar? So his biggest win was against a guy sitting in the 70's (ish). Where would Barrera, Morales & JMM fall (serious question, no way I'd be able to seriously rate a bottom half of a top 100)? Somewhere below Oscar, though.

I'm not sure Cotto would even crack it. Hatton wouldn't fall anywhere near a top 100 list, that's for sure.

I'd need an expert to run the numbers, but I'm sure most of the top 10's resumes are stacked with other top 50's, fighting them either in their prime or at relatively the same stage that Pac fought his best fighters in their careers...

And now that Pac actually HAS moved up and proven he can take on fully fledged prime welterweights, in hindsight, it takes a bit away from the glory of him being the smaller man. He's 100% fine at the weight (a legitimate 140 pounder now, really).

Don't get me wrong. Whilst i feel like i've just picked apart his resume, I still rate him very highly. (again, where, I wouldn't really know. Top 50).

 

I'm not a Pac hating loser simply because I don't rate Pac in the top 10. I'm not a Pac hater full stop. I love Pac. I wasn't sold on him for a while (although was never a hater, although admittedly got into a few arguments with some of the more overzealous Pac fans), but what more else does the guy have to do to make me sold these days? Not much, I tell ya... But still, that doesn't mean I have to put him top 10.

BTW, those 3 points you make are valid (although I never went into Whitakers resume in depth, so I wasn't "leaving anything out" conveniently). But those points also very easilly arguable too (of which I'm not going to go into depth. I'm not really "arguing" here). But Whitaker schooled Chavez, full stop; Beat Nelson, who was the champ of ONE weight division below (like that's anything new in boxing, or something to frown upon); and arguably beat a prime dela hoya, while out of his prime (in age and weight), but was shafted in the decision.

And what you mean - My true colours? As in, am I a Floyd fan? Yes I am.

Where do I rate Floyd if Pac is top 50? Also top 50. I have Pac higher, currently, though (although I don't really have "official" numbers... if that makes sense).

If you look through my very recent post history, you will see that I've actually gone on record and said that if Floyd does not fight (and beat) Pac, Pac will go down higher all time (or something to that effect).

That was probably not worded 100% accurate. Floyd could still doing something outside of Pac, but that's a whole other topic and what if.

All in all, my post above is meaningless if Pac and Floyd gets made.

 

Resume Comparison:

Barrera I - Chavez
Marquez I - DLH
Morales II - McGirt I
Cotto - Vasquez
Marquez II - Nelson
Hatton - McGirt II
Sasakul - Ramirez II
Ledwaba - Mayweather
DLH - Pineda
Diaz - Haugen
Larios - Diaz
Hussein - Nazario
Solis - Paez
Morales III - Pendleton
Sanchez - Ramirez I
Julio - Brazier

I still haven't mentioned champs like Hurtado, Rodriguez, Layne, and other solid fighters like Jones and Rivera for Whitaker. So what was that about Pac having a superior resume?

Not only has he not been as dominant as Whitaker but he does not have a superior resume either.

 

I forgot Barrera II for Pac. Not one of his biggest wins but a solid win all the same against a faded fighter.

 

You no doubt overlook the fact that DLH was old and drained as **** when Pac beat him. Whitaker was old and pretty much held his own against a PRIME no.1 p4p at the time DLH.

 

Don't forget, many including me thought he beat a prime DLH when Pernell was way past it.

 

More of the boxing intelligentsia thought Whitaker beat DLH than Pac beat Marquez in their rematch.:good