Is Manny Pacquiao a top 50 All-Time Great

Yeah, Pacman is great...he is the best in the world....he is magnificent...he is unbeatable....he is masterfull..
Why stop there...he is the best there has ever been.

And he is full of sh.t if he thinks that.

You sound Delusional...do you dream about Manny?

Hummmm.

 

@ the General Forum.

 

yes

 

NOT YET.

He was not top 50 before he beat Diaz and I don't think that victory put him over the top.

As of now I still have him behind Morales and BArrera and I'm not comfortable putting them in the top 50!

NOw some of you mentioned AFTER beating DLH and Hatton. That would be a different story!

 

No not yet. If he cleans out 135 he probably would be top 40.

 

He's probably up there.

I figure that he has to be around where Tito Trinidad is at this point. That's around top 50. If I thought about it, I think I could say top 35 maybe.

 

Hell no! To be in the top 50, you had to have done something truly special against PRIME fighters. I have not seen that from Pac yet. A win over AM will do the trick. I think that if Pac is successful against Dlh, he ought to bypass tha Hatton fight and go after AM. That will put him in the top 50 imo...

 

By AM, do you mean Antonio Margarito???? That's ridiculous :rofl

 

Of course? Why shouldn't he be? Wins over Barrera, Morales, & JMM.. Has won linear titles in four different divisions and other titles in six divisions.. The greatest asian fighter of all time IMO, over Fighting Harada.. If he should beat ODLH and Hatton, then definitely top 30.. Unifying at 135.. Then who knows.. He could be around the top 10..

 

No, but he has a serious chance if he fights for more than just a few years.

 

People put a lot more merit into the title than the opponent beaten for the title it seems.

Pacquiao was a young kid when he fought at Flyweight, let's stop acting like he is a natural Flyweight who's climbed up through the weights at a terrible size disadvantage. He looks great and fits the LW limit fine for Christ's sake, and typically comes in weighing in the mid 140's. He was not a natural Flyweight who made his way through the weights(up to FW) with success like Harada. He was a young kid who grew into his body and developed throughout his career.

I give him credit for his win over Sasakul at Flyweight, even if I consider it a fluke that would not have repeated itself in 10 rematches. Pacquiao was just too poor a fighter at Flyweight, nowhere near what he'd become, and was being thoroughly outboxed by Sasakul prior to the stoppage.

Either way, he was able to have brief success with such limitations at the weight, kudos for him. He didn't really catch his stride IMO until he reached FW, even though many are under the impression he'd have lasted with the greats at 122, whereas I see him as just an amped up version of his younger self in much better fighting condition. Still not terribly skilled. He was able to take out a guy like Ledwaba, a more skilled boxer, simply because of his size and power. They looked several weight classes apart from what I remember, Pacquiao dwarfed him.

As I said, he didn't really catch his stride and start to put in work until he reached FW, where his win over Barrera(albeit a shite version) proved his worth, even if he was still lacking technically. From then on he's been on a rampage, but never really proven his superiority over the era as so many claim. I don't believe he beat Marquez in either matchup, in fact I'd say Marquez claims the edge as the better fighter considering he arguably won both fights(I had the first a draw and Marquez by a point in the rematch, though it was more the way the fights played out that make me lean toward Marquez as the slightly better fighter).

I think Pacquiao's a very talented fighter, just not technically on the same level as so many others. He's made it work against the opposition he's faced for the most part, but then guys like Barrera and Morales were always made for his style(and a faded Morales still managed to thoroughly outbox him in their first fight).

His resume is very good, but it gets overrated when taking everything into account, such as the state of the fighters, the way the fights went down, etc. I think Pacquiao's proven himself to be a great fighter(and I never use that term lightly nowadays), even if I wouldn't favor him over many greats around the weight. The reason I don't believe he is top 50(or anywhere near to be frank) has more to do with the immense quality of the history of the sport than Pacquiao himself.

 

if he beat oscar and hatton and one of the top welterweights like miguel cotto or paul williams I would have him as high as top10 or top15

 

Excellent post, but I have a question.

How do you rate Thomas Hearns moving through the divisions? He was never at much of a size disadvantage at any of the weights he fought at.

For instance, I've always given more credit to Duran for beating Barkely at 160 than Hearns for beating Hill at 175, despite the fact that Hill was a much superior fighter to Barkley. Partly because Duran was considerably further past his best than Hearns was, but more so the size and style of Hill wasn't going to be some huge advantage over Tommy, where as Barkley literally looks twice the size of Duran.

 

Hearns was efficient at every weight he stopped at from 147-175 though, the same can't be said of Pacquiao from 112 to 135. Hearns was better at the lower weights, but was able to cope at higher weights because of his immense skills. Despite his frame, he was not natural at those higher weights. Too naturally lanky.

Pacquiao on the other hand was a fighter who grew not only into the weights, but grew as a fighter skill-wise as he moved up. So he wasn't a smaller fighter making his way against the big men like another Asian in Fighting Harada, he was simply a fighter who started young and grew into the weights.

On a side note, I don't think Hill was much better than Barkley, if at all.

 

Yes