Is Pacquiao Approaching Legendary Status? Comparison to Leonard.

Pacman would only be comparable to Leonard if Leonard actually lost to Hearns twice but got the decision victory both times.

 

AAANND... Pac has yet to reach the legendary status of RJJ and Tyson. Right?

 

The parallelism of Pac's greatness to Leonard is very understandable. Add to that Marciano, Holyfield, Ali, Barrera, Morales, etc. They all have rivalries and their defeat do not diminish their greatness.

Roy Jones is also great but in a different way. His greatness is similar to that of Whitaker, PBF, Lewis, Tyson.

 

tyson not a legend?

he was the youngest heavyweight champ, feared by ALL during his prime (except douglas lol), went into prison, got out and had multi million dollar fights...

if that aint a legend right there i dont know what is....

 

The article doesn't merit serious argument.

The premise is flawed, because the author's criteria don't describe greatness -- they describe popularity.

Clearly, a fighter with a face-first style is going to have more memorable bouts that someone who relies on speed and reflexes to win with a combination of offense and defense. That's popularity.

So, does Manny have more memorable fights than Jones? Perhaps so. Why? Because whether Manny has lost or drawn or eeked out close decisions or dominated in victory, he's always getting hit and coming forward in the process.

Jones, meanwhile, completely dissected ATG opponents in fights that weren't particularly competitive.

In the author's mind, Legend = Popularity, not Greatness. In his next article, he should argue why Arturo Gatti is a more legendary fighter than Floyd Mayweather. More memorable fights and adversity, right?

Not only is Legend applied vaguely/inappropriately, the author can't find it within himself to remain consistent.

That's because he mentions the name Mike Tyson, who by his own criteria ought to be considered a legend. Rivals, great wins (at least early), explosive action, adversity, memorable bouts. Hell, Tyson's legend is greater than that of any active fighter, based on the author's criteria.

He's trying to backdoor Manny ahead of guys who clearly are better than him, but the only way he can do that is to compare them based on something other than competitive merit.

You see hack journalists attempt to do this stuff all the time, and on every single occasion, it underscores the opposite of what they're trying to argue.

Manny is a great fighter and will be remembered as such, and his fans need to leave it at that.

 

There are many legendary boxers who don't have a serious rival. Foreman doesn't have a serious rival. Marciano doesn't have one. Lewis doesn't have one. Hopkins, Ricardo Lopez, etc.

What the article does is set a premise for legendary status which completely fits Pacquiao's background. An in your face, straight forward, action fighter who fights close fights and wars, with explosive endings being rewarded with a status that he dismisses for other more accomplished and greater fighters on the premise that they don't have rivals or aren't exceedingly popular. Greatness is decided by more than that, and it certainly isn't a popularity contest.

Leonard is on another level and the fighters he defeated were on an entirely different level than Barrera and Morales.

 

Pacquiao and Leonard :rofl :rofl

What the **** is up with these Asians

 

That closed minded huh? :tired the article was flawed, but there are still valid points he inserted and backed it up with reasonable opinions. :-(

 

As for you....not as COMPLETE as Pacquiao? Jones Jr is still on another level than Pacquiao. Using critera that benefits Pacquiao in the discussion isn't going to change anything. It is in essence the criteria for being a "popular" fighter, not a great fighter. And legacy isn't built on that, otherwise, DLH's legacy dwarfs everyone in the era.

Jones legacy isn't as complete because he doesn't have a rival? Tell me how having a rival is intricate to having a complete legacy. Tell me why dominance, virtuouso performances, multiple titles and clear and clean victories over ATG's (with no losses in those fights) aren't part of the equation.

 

No, it's completely ****ing absurd whichever way I look at it. They think Leonard and Pacquiao can be reasonably compared even though the competition is worlds apart using some ****ed up criteria suited to boost Pacquiao. That, and using the same ****ed up logic RJJ and Tyson aren't greats, which in essence sums up how ****ed up the aforementioned logic (or lack of it) is

Pile of wank, but not at all unexpected coming from Pac nutriders

 

exactly. complete shutdown:yep

 

Pac nuthuggers =

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

, a fine example of the term.

 

bragging rights man... you dont have it :yep

3 time world chmapion. 2 lineal. :good
whooped 3 mexicos elite when they are still member of the pound per pond top ten. :good
downed the 3 elites with more than 10 KD official/unofficial

 

There are valid points to back up his reasoning. But the reasoning is flawed because the premise of the reasoning is to make Pacquiao seem greater than fighters he has not reached in status yet by tailoring the criteria towards him (Popularity, explosive fights, and rivalries instead of skill, dominance of top competition, and overall great fighting ability). Therefore, while the points may be valid in backing up his reasoning, his reasoning creates an unreasonable definition of greatness and therefore is a bit ridiculous. By his definition, Gatti is better Mayweather and DLH.