Is Manny Pacquiao a top 20 Atg

It should have been an option like not yet.

 

If he beats a genuine Welterweight (Cotto, Mayweather or Mosley) then definitely but he's not quite there yet.

 

Heres the point, which ATG's or near ATG's are currenltly fighting today who pacquiao could fight to go even higher than top 20? LW/JWW, Marquez, WW, mosley plus mayweather, JM -None, MW -Winky maybe, Super Middle - Joe C or Possibly Hop. Pacquiao would have have to knock mayweather and marquez out and beat mosley decisively to crack top 10 p4p. Therefore basing the p4p list on beating ATG's may be somewhat unfair for pacquiao. At the moment pacquiao is top 20 p4p based on the fact that he is doing what the p4p is supposed to do, and that is move up and beat the best.

 

That's because he was fighting the best fighters in the world at their peak fight after fight after fight. And he beat quite a few other fighters (damn near 20 overall) that were accomplished enough to be looked at for the Hall, a lot more than some of the schmucks getting in today. Also, McLarnin only had 60 some fights, and his resume absolutely BLOWS Pac's out of the water.

Wow, well argued. A 5'1 Welterweight KO'ing the top HW's of the era is overrated. Sure thing.

On ability, reign, and dominance, yes. Pacquiao at this point does have the best resume, but if we're really basing ATG rankings strictly on who the fighters faced and beat, Pac would likely be even further down the list than he is now, and we'd have a very distorted view of fighter's careers. A guy like Jones wouldn't even be top 50.

Well, if we're bringing up one of the points *******s always love to bring up, title in multiple weight classes, nobody has Hearns beat. The guy was beating some of the best in the world from Welterweight to Cruiserweight. His most notable win is over Duran, yes, which is a better win than any Pac holds, and you forget to mention the rest of his resume with guys like Benitez, Cuevas, Hill, etc. And again, skills and other factors do play a role in determining ATG status.

True. Chavez gets more overrated than underrated, but I'd never pick Pac to beat him.

I don't really think weight jumping has dick to do with it. Monzon dominated his weight class consistently during a fine MW era. The guy never lost a fight outside of his early days as a beginner in Argentina. He beat everyone he ever faced, and dominated the division against an excellent crop of contenders. If you're taking away from Monzon for not moving up in weight, I can easily take away from Pac for never dominating a single weight class. It's all about who you face, how you beat them, and how your career unfolded.

You really did yourself in here. First of all, he did beat Ike Williams, twice.

How about Billy Graham, Beau Jack, Tiger Jones, Eduardo Lausse, Rocky Castellani, Gene Burton, Gaspar Ortega, Gil Turner, Chuck Davey, Chico Vejar, Johnny Bratton, Fitzie Pruden, Gene Hairston, Tony Janiro, Paddy Young, Joe Micelli, Laurent Dauthuille, etc.

Looks a lot deeper and more stacked than Pacquiao's resume to me.

He's one of the greats, no doubt about it. But let's not get ahead of ourselves. I'd really like to wait until he's retired to properly evaluate what he's accomplished.

 

When is PAc going to fight a Campbell, Guzman, Shane, Bradley, or a Floyd? Ledwaba was a bum. Pac is only fighting certain styles in boxing, and is leaving one certain style out. What's really good?

 

All of these men you listed all fought men in their absolute prime. This is one of the worst outlooks I've ever read on any boxing forum lol. Pac only has J.M.M and maybe 2-3 other nondescript prime fighters on his resume. Dlh, Larios, Barrera and Morales were guys who were near the end, and these names are why PAc is being overrated. Great management by PAc and his people. If PAc fights Cotto instead of Floyd, and calls it a career, I'll call him a *****. After the Hatton fight, Merchant asked PAc if he would fight Floyd, and PAc said, "I can fight anybody". Fight Floyd or you will be judged harshly by me.

 

atschI can't believe most people are voting yes. I hope this is just the hype after the fight...

Pacquiao is not even top 30, whoever said yes i wana see your ****ing top 20 atgs.

 

People call Pac a 6 time champion in 6 different weight classes. Another way to overrate a guy. Fighters back then fought in 8 weight classes, so to use this criteria in a favorable way towards Pac diminishes any argument.

 

Everyone loves the aggressive style...until they meet a true boxer. PAc won't fight Floyd. They want to keep Pac's legacy intact. Arum is the scum of the earth. Like I said, if PAc doesn't fight Floyd, he is a true ***** in my book.

 

Thanks for proving my point. He's overrated for precisely that reason. It's kind of like his heavyweight namesake who I think is overrated... you can't lose that many times and be rated that highly. When you only win 60% of your fights and you're rated top 20? Hmmm. I'm sure there were other factors at work in those days, such as colour, which wouldn't have helped, but it's beside the point.

How is his win over Duran better than anything Pacquiao has? The size difference was immense in favour of Hearns, and the styles matchup was appalling for Duran. Duran was past his prime and FAR above his best weight. Definitely debatable.

You don't think weight jumping has "dick" to do with it? It's a principal criterion in defining a "pound for pound" fighter, as they prove themselves against elite fighters bigger than them. It's not a requisite, but it's certainly a large contributor to the greatness of guys like Armstrong and Langford. I find this strange after you just claimed that Walcott was great because he knocked out heavyweights? Well argued, well argued.

He did? My mistake. Williams was a natural lightweight anyway.

Beau Jack is a massive name, no doubt about that. Billy Graham is too. But I guess a factor to consider here is that manner of the victories. Gavilan beat Graham with some close decisions, and lost a close decision or two (I can't remember the exact results), whereas Pacquiao is winning convincingly against great fighters. Something to consider.

By the way, who are some of those guys you mentioned? Paddy Young?! Fitzie Pruden? Sorry if I'm not well versed in the contenders of over 50 years ago... but judging by records (the only way I can with fighters I don't know), they're nothing "special". Pruden was 50-17 at the time of the fight, and ended up 51-22. Something tells me a fighter who loses that many times (to nobodies half the time), isn't a victory to brag about.

Yes, that's sound advice. But I'm sick and tired of people saying (or implying) that modern fighters can't match fighters of the past. They fought very often in comparison, of course the depth of their records will be better. And that also contributes to why they have more losses on their records. But I've been sitting here for most of this decade, watching Manny Pacquiao continually tear up the supposed greatest fighters of the era... and then I see people seemingly blinded by nostalgia claim that it's a joke to consider this guy [the best of his time] comparable to the best 2-3 fighters from every other 'time'.

Forgive me for saying, "get off the crack pipe imbeciles' [not directed at you Sweet Pea]. We all know that in 20 years or so, people will look back and rank Pacquiao right up there with the best. That's the way it always happens.

 

if he beats Cotto at ww= top15-20
if he beats Cotto by KO= 15
If he beats PBF=top10-15
If he kos pbf=inside1-10
if he beats boths=inside 10
if he kos both=inside top 10

 

:good

I was gonna reply to that post of Sweet Pea but I think you covered everything. Its simple maths and you pointed it out earlier, if there is 10 decades and your the best of one of them, you would have to imply that your era was EXTREMELY **** to have at least 5 fighters of each every other decade be better than you.

 

Agreed...he would join floyd in that book!!!:good