Is Pacquiao over rated?

I agree that it should have been at 147 but take in mind pac only fought oscar before that and since oscar looked so bad we had no idea if he was capable of fighting at welter or if it was a fluke ( kind of simialir with marquez since he did very well vs pac but his style give him trouble, we dont know if he would handle a guy like berto for example.
Back then he just destroyed hatton and seemed like a small guy that could fight at 140, despite his close fight with clottey cotto was well.... miguel cotto hard hitting good boxer. It was assumed pac was going to stay at 140 rather than move to welter but since bob wanted a big inhouse fight pacs team forced a catchweight to get some leverage since he was able to make demands now because of his drawing power.
At first they wanted 143 which mosley was willing to make ( imagine the hatred if that had happened in hindsight at that weight) then agreed with cotto 145, cotto made 146 vs clottey so 145 didnt seem a problem and turned out it never was for him.
the fight wasnt as close as the clottey fight, maybe then you could argue those 2 pounds matter but it was one sided after the second kd, therefore I think even if it was at 147 cotto would have lost that fight.

 

Is Pacquiao overrated? ATG speaking, my opinion:

If someone says top 10?
Yes

If someone says top 20?
No, but I'd like to see your list if you have him 16 or higher. And don't come at me with some "***** this, ***** that" stuff whenever I express this sentiment.

If someone says top 30?
No

If someone says out of top 40?
You're crazy

That's just my opinion on one fighter. The answers for me are different for Jones, Charles, Robinson, Elorde, Lopez, Monzon, etc. Oddly enough, my above answers are the exact same for Mayweather.

Currently speaking:

If someone puts him #1 P4P?
Yes, but it is somewhat in the realm of understandable to leave him here, if you were willing to admit bias in a way that by keeping him here you invoke a double standard

If someone puts him below #3?
You're crazy

If someone has him #1 at welterweight?
Yes, overrated, no way that 147 resume compares to Mayweathers' at the moment

If someone has him below #2 at welterweight?
You're a ******

 

He may not have been as great as we thought. He's not overrated, though. Not anymore, anyway. The Marquez fight brought him back to Earth.

 

How great did you think he was?

 

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4I6kx0QW7mU[/ame]


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEnPEz_rSoU[/ame]


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AS2nakFH2fM[/ame]

 

yup, i watched it, pac 4x kd jmm, pac 2-1-0 jmm, should be 3-0 you know it.:deal

 

Ledwaba and Sasakul are two of his best wins. GREAT wins, only trumped on his resume by, what, Barrera I, Cotto, and maybe Hatton? I don't think anybody doubts that.

So, a look at his outstanding top 5, my opinion:
1. Barrera I
2. Cotto
3. Sasakul
4. Hatton
5. Ledwaba

HOWEVER,

They kind of work against his resume though, showing that victories over Marquez, Barrera, and Morales don't appear next in line. Why not? The two official wins were struggles with Marquez, never good for an ATG in the post 1990 days. The two redemption wins over Morales were at a crazily down time of Morales' career, having just been thoroughly beaten beforehand by Zahir. His 2006 fighter of the year was undeserved at the time, looking back, one of the worst in a while. And the Barrera win was clearly not as meaningful as his name should carry by the time of the second, '07.

Then, what is beyond this? A whole lot of Shane Mosley, de la Hoya, Agapito Sanchez, Jorge Solis, David Diaz, Joshua Clottey, Medgeon Sinsurat, Oscar Larios, Nedal Hussein, Hector Velazquez, 3k Battery, Emmanuel Lucero, Jorge Julio

I'll even say that is in order of difficulty. A lot of names, but a whole lot, "eh, well..."

His stay at 122 is not very good. None of his opponents, Ledwaba aside, were ever in the Ring top 10 during the stay which Pac was there.

http://boxrec.com/media/index.php/The_Ring_Magazine's_Annual_Ratings:_Junior_Featherweight--2000s

 

A lot of things get downplayed in hindsight though, like the morales' wins or barrera 2 a fight a lot of people wnated at the time.
same with marquez 2 which you could argue he won.
this esb article from 2006 names him as frontrunner for foty ( http://www.eastsideboxing.com/news.php?p=9188&more=1 )
There was also a poll over at the scene back then that showed him a clear winner yet now its the worst choice in recent history.
Same with Oscar picking him to move up to look good against yet backfiring gets labled a pac cherypick, eventhough fighting at 147 as a former flyweight is crazy.

 

he is just getting older, still a great fighter but he is out of prime. From Barrara 1 to Cotto were his best years (the margarito fight was ok tho)

 

1. Styles makes fights.
2. That's Juan Manuel Marquez for you.


A boxer-puncher who has the chin and the balls to trade with Pac. :nono

Answer to the question is No.
Why would Floyd ask the ****ing drug tests if Pac ain't jack****.

 

Fair play. And I agree with most.

I personally rate Pac between 40-50, and I don't think I'm crazy and/or underrate him. (I don't have an issue with someone putting him at the lower end of the 30's, but don't agree at the same time).

Being in the top 50 fighters of all time is an amazing accomplishment. Amazing.

There have been some truly great fighters across boxings history.

 

Do you have chavez higher than pac?

 

No he's not.