Is Pacquiao a top 10 ATG?

Charles' win over Louis was as prime as Mayweather's over Pacquiao, and Mosley, or Pacquiao's over De La Hoya, and Barrera. Luckily, none of their reputations are limited to one win. I gave you 11 names to chew on. The names on Charles' list, I gave them to you together with the best of Pac and May's so you could look at them side by side. Charles' are better. 11 hall of famers, 8 unified undisputed champions, not just belt holders. He was 86 and 9 by the time he was 32 and washed up. I don't think that Floyd or Pac would have held their losses to 9 if they fought 95 times. Who'd he lose to? Ken Overlin, hall of famer, middleweight champ, avenged. Jimmy Bivins, hall of famer, victor over 8 world champions, thrice avenged. Lloyd Marshall, hall of famer, beat Burley, Williams, Chase, LaMotta, and Yarosz, avenged. Elmer Ray, the number 2 heavyweight contender, one of the best punchers ever, with victories over Walcott and Lee Savold, avenged. Jersey Joe Walcott, hall of famer, heavyweight champ, beat Louis, Johnson, Maxim, Ray, and Bivins, went 2/4 in their series. Rex Layne, avenged. Do you see the pattern? He avenged his losses the same as Pac and Floyd did. He's got more wins over more notable opponents than either of them. Pac's got losses, and Floyd would have a lot more losses if he'd fought everyone who was around like Charles instead of cherry picking.

 

Boxers who fight everybody get losses. Everybody loses eventually. Put that Floyd Mayweather cherry picking nonsense out of your head. Floyd would have lost to prime Pacquiao and a bunch of other guys in his weight classes if he'd fought them. He lost to Castillo and Maidana even with all the cherry picking and only fighting fifty bouts. Also, Charles and Walker have very good records. They barely lost any for guys who fought more than a hundred times, and all of their losses came at the beginning of their careers when they were green or at the end when they were shot. And did you happen to notice that Walker was a welterweight fighting heavyweights? The former welterweight champ at one time was ranked as the number five heavyweight in the world. Can you imagine Crawford or Spense beating up the light heavyweight and cruiserweight champs, maybe holding Usyk to a draw the way Mickey held Sharkey? That's super human. Forget that 0 stuff. The only guys who go undefeated are the ones who never test themselves.

The best way to measure a fighter's greatness isn't his win/loss record. It's his win loss record against top 10 ranked opponents. Floyd Mayweather is 23-2 against top ten opposition. He's fought 9 hall of famers, 4 or 5 champions (the top rated guy in his new divisions). Okay? Manny Pacquioa is 34-5-2 against top ten opposition. He's beaten 8 or 9 hall of famers, 4 or 5 champions. He's been a little more active and accomplished a bit more. He's taken more chances and got a few more losses. Ezzard Charles is 40-17-1. He's almost lapped Mayweather with his victories. You take away all the easy marks, the stay busy fights, the green learning phase of their careers, and just focus on how often they were in the ring with credible opponents. Roy Jones Jr. is 26-8 against top ten opposition. He's beaten 7 hall of famers and 2 champions. Bernard Hopkins is 26-7-4 against top ten opposition. He's beaten 6 hall of famers and 2 champions. Pernell Whitaker is about 22-3-1 against top ten opponents. He's beaten 4 hall of famers and 3 champions. Vasyl Lomachenko is 13-1 against top ten opposition. He's beaten 1 maybe 2 hall of famers, 1 champion. Ray Robinson 44-13-1, Archie Moore 44-15-4, Henry Armstrong 33-12-2.

 

I think what people fail to understand is that being top 10 ATG is a very hard thing to attain. You are matching guys across all generations some have been forgotten or not know by people such as the great Benny Leonard, the legendary Jack Johnson perhaps the finest of them all Charley Burley, Ike Williams, Gentleman Jim Corbett and the list goes on and on. I realize some of my favorites fighters will not make the top ATG and rightly so because it’s a stern test.

 

Looking at it like that, and given Charles has multiple wins over most of those guys, and you missed a couple note-worthy named (although he never beat Overlin), May and Pac have or no case for being above Charles.

The guy started off as a small MW, and ended up the best LHW in history, and undisputed HW champion with 8 defences. Beating:

Archie Moore 3*
Charley Burley 2*
Joey Maxim 5*
Jersey Joe Walcott 2*
Jimmy Bivins 3*
Lloyd Marshall 2*
Gus Lesenvich
Rex Layne 2*
Old Joe Louis

On top of elite contenders like Anton Christoforidis, Bob Satterfield, José Basora, Oakland Billy Smith, Elmer Ray, Sam Baroudi ect. Guy was an absolute beast. Even if he wasn't a champion at 175, he did actually beat two sitting LHW champs, in non-title fights. He also was arguably robbed against Harold Johnson, Jersey Joe, Kid Turnero, Elmer Ray, Rex Layne ect; but the biggest one (which was scored for him by some ringside) is definitely the first fight with Rocky Marciano. Had that gone his way he's literally the GOAT.

 

Ah, mixed decision one judge for him and two even. I see. Wikipedia listed it as a victory for Charles.

 

yep, he's suspicious too

 

Even by the sternest of assessments Mayweather definitely is the argument for top 10 ATG.

 

Thats just about the response I'd expect from an idiot like you. How old are you 12?????

 

I don't know about that. Until recently, there used to be a top 100 pound for pound ranking pinned in the classic that had Manny and May somewhere around 40. Supposedly, those are our most historically informed members. I could see a couple of ways people might not rank Floyd in the top 10 depending on how they weight things. You could go by quality of opposition and say that he never fought another all time great in their prime. You could take issue with how few fights he had and say that he couldn't compare to guys who've had two hundred or more. You could look at the number of top ten fighters he fought and note that many boxers have fought two or three times as many. You could take issue with him never fully unifying a division, or claim that his doping disqualifies him from the top spots. There's a couple of different ways to skin this cat.

 

That is not true he fought prime Hernandez, Castillo, Corrales, Sharmba Mitchell, Arturo Gatti, Cotto, Canelo and list goes on and on. The fact he outclassed them shows how great he was. He did not need to unify when he beat the best fighter in each division and the other champions did not want it. Big Jack himself the Easton Assasin ATG the great Big Larry Holmes never unified either. He never failed a drug test period so a non- point.

 

Neither has Pacquiao, yet you go out of your way to note that as a deduction of sorts in his historical standing. Like I said, you're a biased nuthugger that hands out free passes to fit his agenda.

 

Prime pac had faded erik Morales problems and couldnt even beat jmm clearly. Pbf beats any version of pac because pac cant deal with pbfs ability to control range and dictate distance. No one here has an answer for it and neither did pac. So stop with that pbf loses to a prime pac based on what? Wishful thinking??? Btw pbf is undefeated you making up stats doesnt change reality or help your argument.

 

He's got you there, Olug.

Yeah, none of those guys are all time greats, with the exception of Canelo who was green and years away from his prime. Floyd had the chance to fight Pacquiao in his prime and he declined. Holmes is considered a cherry picker too and consequently not rated as high as guys like Ali. Like Floyd, he swerved some of his biggest opponents.

 

Mayweather-Pacquiao was not the one-sided schooling I sometimes hear.

I can't make a case for Pac winning, but it was a close fight. Had Floyd by a couple points.

A lot of the better media scorecards had it close, too (Iole, Pugmire, Raskin). It's hard to take Farhood's 118-110 or Fridley's 119-109 seriously.


A 2010 Mayweather-Pacquiao bout remains fascinating.

 

Pac had the chance to fight a prime pbf but declined he didnt want testing. When they did fight pbf schooled him. Canelo fought pbf at the right time he was 36 past his best and in his 5th weight class and pbf schooled him to. The common theme is pbf wins and others come up short. He schools elite fighters, yeah canelo looks better now he's not fightng pbf the best fighter of the era anymore