Is Manny Pacquiao a top 50 All-Time Great

A very, very good post! I just need some more from Pac. You think about the top 50 fighters...You know who is ranked #50 by Ring Mag...Hopkins. You know who is 51? Tito. lol...go figure. Not yet Pac. 2 legends past it and a J.M.M does help, but from 50 to 1, you don't compare...yet!

 

Yes and that's one hell of a resume at 29!

 

.
Yes, but I meant to get off topic from Pacquiao for a moment. Where do you rate Tommy's success through the divisions with others, Duran being the example I'm giving. Tommy filled out almost perfectly to every weight and was virtually never at a height or reach disadvantage which may be the most critical disadvantage of smaller fighters moving up, Hearns has always been hard for me to rate to a degree because of this. For instance, if a guy the size of Gavilan, De La Hoya, or Benitez had beaten Hill, it would be much more impressive to me than Hearns beating him. I don't rate Tommy's success through the weight classes as highly as some others, do you?

 

Yes. Fringe top 50 for me.

 

Nah, I don't think so. Not yet, anyway. Right now, I would probably have him around 100, give or take 10.

However, if he beats De La Hoya, which is possible. Hatton, which is a near certainty, and then goes back to lightweight to clear up, I think he'll be a top 40 fighter.

 

Guys, I don't really follow the ATG rankings, but I am curious about where you place Roy Jones in your ATG list, and I want to know which victory would you consider more important..... Jones over Ruiz or Pac over Hoya, if it does happen.

 

I have outside the top 50. Ask he again if he cleans out the LW division

 

His height and reach, combined with his boxing ability, gave him more of an advantage at higher weights than most other natural 147-154 pounders yes, but while he fit the portrait of a higher weight fighter, he was by no means natural there, especially given his lack of physical strength in comparison to most around the higher weight classes. I agree with you though that it's not as impressive as if the fighters you mentioned were to have done it, yes. Either way, he was more than effective enough at his prime weights to be rated as highly as he is, even if you don't think as highly of his weight jumps.

 

you forgot to put Hector Velasquez lmao! j/k

yes

 

Certainly. Hearns is inside my top 40 all-time P4P, But looking at the leap from welter to lightheavy, someone who had success in every weight class in between should rate higher than top 35 IMO, and Tommy doesn't crack my top 35 for the previously stated reasons. My struggling with rating him is that he never truly domianted any division and his success through the divisions, while impressive, is less so than several other multiple weight-jumpers.

 

Jones-Ruiz because both were still prime when they fought. Dlh is old and coming in at a disadvantage even though Dlh has physical advantages...does that make sense? lol. JMO. Pac-Dlh is going to be more exciting than people realize. I know PAc fans are going to overrate him if he beats Dlh. I can see the cyclone coming lol...

 

Talking of resume . . . nah I don't think so. But milleage accomplishments YES . . . he should be top 50.

First Asian to be P4P # 1
First Asian to be a world Divisional Champ
First fighter at the lower weight Division to be #1 P4P
The highest paid ASIAN athlete

:deal

 

He will retire inside IMO. He has won titles from flyweight to lightweight, usually beating quality opposition, it will be a long time before we see that again IMO. I dont think just because he wasnt a natural flyweight and others who did similar things were should be counted against him. I think the fact he won a world title so young against a legtitimate champion just proves his longevity, which is an important part of ranking someone alltime I reckon.
He still has some big fights out there to solidfy his legacy, certainly a win over De la Hoya would be huge, regardless of DLH being in the advanced stages of his career.

I would struggle to rank him in there now but I think there are a few more opponants out there that would catapult him into the top50. Even if he doesnt beat DLH, beating Hatton and becoming top the heap at lightweight (hopefully in a third with Marquez) would be very significant. I think LW would be a good weight to finish his career, I would like to see actually stay at the weight for a little while and truly clean it out.

I see what you are saying Sweet Pea and agree that people dont look into who the title was won off rather than just seeing that someone won a title. But I dont think Pac's resume is comparebly weak, I think is just about as strong as it could be and he holds wins over the some of the greats of his time. Some fighters ranked in the top50 by certain publications dont have those wins, not even close. Some dont have that longevity or multi weight success.
I think the word fluke in boxing is the wrong term to use though, it insinuates luck played a part , he threw a punch...Sasakul didnt get out of the way of it and didnt get up..I dont see that as luck.

 

Yes, and if he beat DLH I'll have him top 10.

Not too long ago people thought 130 was too big for Pac. Then it was no way he could hang at 135, as he approached 135 he became favourite in most matches. The notion of Pac-DLH was laughable, it was the impossible, at the time achieving that impossible task would probably have jumped him to #1. When he beats DLH people gonna say, yeh top 30, if he beats Pavlik then maybe id make him top 20.

To put it into perspective, most lists have Jack Johnson, Dempsey, Frazier, foreman, holmes, Hopkins, Galaxy, lamotta, pryor on top 50. Pac's resume is very much comparable to theirs.

There is also alot of fighters pre 60's era which I dont care much to comment about cos to be honest, I really dont know much about them. When rating fighters, i prefer to do a modern era one, 1960+. The 2 era's are hardly comparable either as they are very different. how do you compare guys who has fought 300 times to guys who fought 30 times?