pac was already #2 P4P before the jmm-pac II, PBF was #1 then. Then PBF retired, making pac #1 p4p. my point is pac is not pound for pound best because he beat marquez (controversially as they say) but because of his other performances.. My question: Is it fair for other people to say that marquez is best pound for pound because of the nature of the call in the jmm-pac II? for all i know, when a Pound for pound fighter is beaten, the one that beat him doesn't exactly takes his place. Taylor beat Bhop but did not take his place (at #1), instead floyd was awarded with it. same as cotto margarito. Hatton-tszyu... I said this because people argue that jmm beat pac then he should be p4p best, why not the calzaghe take pac's place then (this is before the casa fight). Now, marquez beat a legendary casa(37y/o) by KO (the only on to do so) and people argue that he should be p4p best for that (he was officially moved to #2, i don't know why? i think calzaghe deserves it more). If that is the argument used for jmm to become p4p best, i think its bad, because pac has KOed morales(30y/o) twice (the only one to do so also) and a prime barrera. Also people credit marquez for beating barrera, and then not credit pac for beating barrera the second time. PS: Marquez is a masterful boxer, i admire his heart. he deserves the top p4p also for his skills. i just hate the argument that jmm should be p4p best because pac only beat him controversially, and now he beat casa making him the first to do that. your thoughts guys? thanks
The thing is, Marquez was already knocking on a top 3 spot just prior to JMM-Pacquiao II. The winner, rightfully, got the #1 spot after PBF retired. Hopkins-Taylor is a poor example because Taylor wasn't a P4P fighter when he beat Hopkins. Not even close, actually.
Right now: 1.Pac 2.JMM But they really must have a 3rd fight to determine who the true no1 is. It is such a close call at the moment.
1) Pac 2) Calzaghe 3) JMM You can add Calzaghe as #3 or #2, I had him #3 a while ago then back to #2...etc, get different thoughts about it but settled with #2 for Calzaghe now.
No! It's not fair and it makes no sense. To call JMM P4P #1 for LOOSING makes about as much sense as a "Joe" taking a Hooker out on an actaul date! Casa deserves to be on the list but behind PAC. #2 or #3 can be justified for Juan Manuel.
Look at it this way: Pac barely beating JMM drags him down in p4p points, but JMM barely losing to Pac pushes him up in p4p points. Thats how good Pac is. If you have a close fight against him, you get a ton of credit, but if he has a close fight against anyone, he loses credit, because he is that good that he should not be having close fights with anyone. I was reading today someone say that Pac had an average showing against Oscar Larios, a fight he won almost every round and floored his opponent once or twice. One judge had it 120-106, but someone compared that fight to Calzaghe vs Bika. Imagine.
I have Pac #1 P4P and JMM #2 P4P.. Floyd was #1 when he retired and Pac was #2, so Pac moved up.. Nothing has happened that should have made him drop in rankings.. Pac is ranked higher because of his victory over JMM, but that's not the only reason why.. His other victories helped get him there, such as dominating wins over Morales, Barrera, Larios, Solis, and Diaz.. Not being biased, but there shouldn't be a debate on who #1 is right now.. More than likely, it should be about who's #2.. JMM or Calzaghe..
The only ones saying that JMM is #1 P4P are the JMM nuthuggers in ESB. What credentials do they have?
anyone who says Marquez is #1 p4p is an idiot....and you need not even entertain his thoughts of lunacy
my argument still stands, taylor did not take hopkins' place. even if taylor is in the p4p list when he beat hopkins, he will not take hopkins' #1 spot because THE #2 GUY (which happened to be floyd back then) HAS PROVEN MORE.
