James Slater - Pacquiao better than Armstrong?

People are once again getting carried away. The win over Cotto was impressive but to be compared to the likes of Armstrong, Robinson and Ali as he now is, he should beat someone like Floyd Mayweather. Then we can talk.

 

I've never quite understood the Pacquiao - Armstrong comparisons. Armstrong held three undisputed championships in three traditional weight classes simultaneously. No one should deserve comparison with him, before or since, in that regard.

I must admit, I've continually failed to regard Miguel Cotto as anything other than an average welterweight titlist.
Of course, it was a big achievement for Pacquiao - or anyone - to move up weight divisions and beat contenders and titlists. But I'm one of those who always considered Pacquiao's greatest work to be done in the lower divisions, before the hype machine went into full-****** when he came up and beat up the remains of ODLH.
Still, the Hatton KO goes done in the annals as a classic.

Pacquiao, truly a great fighter. But I wouldn't have him in the same category as Armstrong.

Armstrong, I'd rate in the top 5 all-time greats. Pacquiao should not be rated that high, imo.
Others opinions may differ.

 

Yeah, I think Manny Pacquiao was/is a legit a fairly formidable welterweight, albeit a small one.
He's proved that. Perhaps I was a little less surprised than many others were that he actually beat guys like Oscar and Cotto though.

Where do you think Pacquiao would rank in terms of ATG status/list p4p ?
(assuming he's done/retired now)

I think he should rank reasoning high. Though I'm not so sure I'd put him above Marquez, never mind Mayweather.

 

The fact that we're even talking about him as a welterweight is incredible. This man use to be a flyweight, wether he was drained there or not. I'd have to rank manny above maywether honestly. An I actually always liked floyd better

 

It is amazing. But he was drained to the point where he couldn't make weight and was 20 years old.
In such a case, you'd expect such a fighter to grow and settle into a legit 130 or 135 five to ten years later, as he did.
I think he's a strong legitimate lightweight, great enough to campaign as a welter.
I suppose that's the same with Henry Armstrong. :good

 

There is no way in hell that Pacquiao is better than Armstrong, Pacquiao is the most exiting fighter of this era but this era isn't very strong with competition compared to others, say it like this, Nigel Benn seemed very good but it was because his era wasn't as strong as the Hagler hearns leonard duran era when he sparred an old Duran he looked very old Duran was spinning doing 360 degree turns on the ropes tripping Benn up not even trying just shows that the talent was much different but because the talent was worse in one era makes fighters seem greater than they actually are.

 

Armstrong still has the greatest run in history. His 59-1-1 (51) from '37 to '40 could realistically have been, and probably should have been, 61-0-0 (51) including two wins over Lou Ambers (very underrated). Without that, he still defended the welterweight title a record eighteen times - which is astonishing considering he was outweighed more often than not - and at one point scored twenty six knockouts in a row. A few opponents were perhaps not of top quality but most were (many have been forgotten and are mere names at the mercy of statisticians), and remember that Armstrong was fighting them on a monthly basis instead of yearly, and at a frenetic pace.

To me there is little shame in him losing to Fritzie Zivic, who reportedly targeted Armstrong's scar tissue and blinded him in his own blood, after such a hectic reign. And to Armstrong's credit, he forged a post-championship career that would have still got him inducted into the IBHOF on its own. If compartmentalising then so perhaps would his pre-championship career as well, such was his greatness.

Armstrong, for me, stands head and shoulders above Pacquiao, and that is no discredit to that man (little shame in losing Marquez either, by the way), but to the credit of Hank.

All-time great jaw, difficult to hit cleanly and stamina in abundance. A fighter whose base work rate was set a level above everyone else's, and whose relentlessness could truly suffocate an opponent and throw off his timing. An all-time great puncher for my liking; if not based around power (which was still good) then volume instead; for you cannot argue with such formidable statistics and fight reports that claim his endless assault was just too much for most humans to withstand.