Pac best fighter of last 30 years, RJJ close 2nd

Manny Paquaio is a FIGHTER!!! Jones jr was a over rated CHERRY PICKIN PRIMA DONNA !!!! When he finally had to meet legit opposition he got starched THREE TIMES!!!

 

I wont question that he has acheived more, but Leonard beat better fighters, AND was the better fighter. So it goes both ways, ya know?

 

Look guys some posts here are some fanboys and should be disregarded. I have a question. If Congressmanny is the best in this last 30 years and some rabid joyboy fans like to compare him alongside their boyfriend Floyd....

Logic would dictate then that it means after Pacquaio is should be Floyd and not Ray Leonard or RJJ at #2 right?

 

Actually Roy Jones is hardly an entertaining fighter. He is just a notch less boring than Mayweather.

 

Oh the irony...

 

Wow, i can't for Floyd or any natural "boxer" with head and foot movement to expose Pacquiao. The hype train that started after Floyd retired will be over quick and everybody will be saying well I think everybody knew Floyd was going to win and Pacquiao was too small anyways, Floyd still sucks.

 

Pac > Roid Jones, all day, every day. It's not fukken close. :deal

 

Be serious Leonard challenge for the real middle weight title, and he didn't win it at a catch weight .. lets not forget Hit man Hearns ..

Pac the best fighter in the last 30 years ?? don't think so ..

 

On competition/wins it has to be Leonard.

Wins over Duran, Hearns, Hagler and Benitez tops Pacquiao's comp.

They're both great fighters though.

 

no way. I'm a Pacfan, but from 81-to present day he's not the best. Of the last 30 yrs it's most likely Sugar Ray Leonard. He beat all the best fighters in their primes and does have 2 questionable fights, vs. Hagler and the second Hearns fight, just like Pacman has vs. JMM at 130. And don't forget who Leonard did it against, because Pac's best wins were past their prime fighters or shot fighters with the exception of Cotto, who I think is Pacman's best win. Pacman is great, but let's not get ahead of ourselves. People get high on a new thing especially a current fighter. Floyd, Pacman, or anyone have yet to fight and beat fighters Leonard, RJ, or Whitaker beat. I think Pacman is closing in on or on par with Whitaker, but Leonard and RJ were still on another level.

 

So what if Hagler only held one title in 1 division? He dominated that division and beat some very good names along the way. Not to mention how highly he rates H2H with anybody at 160.

Whitaker has a better resumé than Pacquiao in my opinion and ranks a bit higher head-to-head, he'd beat Pacquiao for me at 135 or 147.

Leonard has a great resumé aswell, and no, he didn't lose to Hagler at 160. It's a debatable, close fight that he officially won. And so what? Losing to Hagler in a close, debatable decision at 160 wouldn't exactly be the worst thing in the world, he's a top 3 middleweight ever.

 

Top 30 of the last 30 years:

Roberto Duran
Sugar Ray Leonard
Marvin Hagler

Julio Cesar Chavez
Pernell Whitaker
Manny Pacquiao

Michael Spinks
Larry Holmes
Alexis Arguello
Salvador Sanchez
Thomas Hearns
Roy Jones Jr

Floyd Mayweather Jr.
Bernard Hopkins
Evander Holyfield
Oscar De La Hoya
Marco Antonio Barrera
Erik Morales
Mike Tyson
Aaron Pryor

Wilfredo Gomez
Lennox Lewis
Wilfred Benitez
Ricardo Lopez
Shane Mosley
Felix Trinidad
Juan Manuel Marquez
Azumah Nelson
Mike McCallum
Orlando Canizales

 

lzdie

 

1980-2010 P4P

1.Ray Leonard
2.Pernell Whitaker
3.Manny Pacquiao

(Duran, Arguello, etc belong to the 70s IMO)

 

Just at the top of my head right now, Pac is probably the most exciting fighter in the last 30 yrs mainly because he has massive worldwide star power. But to say he's the best is highly arguable considering there are so many gifted fighters. It really depends on how you judge. If you think a great fighter is based on how many awards he's won and the number of big names he has on his resume then Mike Tyson and Floyd Jr wouldn't even be considered. As far as I'm concerned I go beyond title belts and KO power. There are so many factors such as difficulty of opponents, natural athletic abilities, ring intelligence, heart, experience, dominance, offense/defense, etc., etc., etc.

Whatever. This is not an objective thread as hard as anyone works to say otherwise. One thing that's inarguable is it's difficult for any boxing fan to say his favorite fighter isn't the best.