Pacquiao isn't appreciated enough.

History has no choice but to acknowledge Manny as far and away the best fighter of his generation. Bar none.

 

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

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

Who is he. PAC who.

 

Bobby Pacquiao, you freaking casual.

 

--- Lucky punch
--- I thought I won
--- I am afraid of needles
--- KO by in 6 -- lying there like a dead fish
And so many more.
Thats why he doesn't make the cut.

 

↑This

Also, since he's retired, shouldn't this be in Classic?

There are plenty of Pac threads and there doesn't need to be another one every day...

 

Your nationalism and tribalism when it comes to Pacquiao appear cloud your judgement to the point where it's the boxing equivalent of William Wallace standing 7 feet tall, but I will try to engage with the points you've made. For the record, I'm a white Englishman. I was also a fan of both fighters, I watched all of Pac's fights where possible and enjoyed watching him go to work - who didn't?

First of all I'd cut out the appeals to authority in your argument wherever possible. If you're holding up the opinions of a few individuals from the multitude of ex fighters, coaches and experts out there, then you'd have to acknowledge the hundreds and thousands of opinions of people who might pick anybody from SRR, Ali, SRL, Duran, Mayweather etc. It would be quite a tiresome exercise. Also, is it not beyond the realms of possibility that Morales and Barrera overrate Pac intentionally to boost their own legacies?

Yes, Pac is a former flyweight, but you're taking the nuance out of what I said. I said that most fighters, if they started at 16, would also have multiple additional weight categories on their CVs. Want me to prove it? Here's the example you SHOULD be most familiar with because of their rivalry.

'Mayweather had an amateur record of 84 wins and 8 losses,[36] and won national Golden Gloves championships in 1993 (at 106 lb), 1994 (at 114 lb), and 1996 (at 125 lb).' For reference, Mayweather was 16 in 1993, NOTE THE WEIGHTS. The 8 division stuff, considering Pac wasn't facing the highest calibre opposition at the time, is used as a shortcut to winning an argument. It's a great achievement of course, but it's not a defining one.

No issues with your views on catchweights as such, but you're neglecting to mention that Roach was constantly on at Mosley to fight Pac at 142 or other ridiculous crap BEFORE he fought Mayweather. Then they decided to take him on. Why didn't they rush to take him on at 147 and get more credit? We know why. I'm not saying Pac couldn't/wouldn't have won but you have to think about things like this.

Mosley wasn't COMPLETELY shot but he was essentially Mayweather's leftovers and fighters can decline visibly in their 30s. Had he been one fight removed in his 20s, I'd take that comment more seriously. I never understood why Pac was fighting guys like Oscar (147, not 154), Hatton and Mosley after they had already been dismantled. Casuals lapped it up and immediately employed triangle theory - oh well if Pac knocked Hatton out in 2, just think of what he could do to Mayweather! It's playground level analysis. And I WILL absolutely take away the Hatton fight. Yes, hindsight gives everybody 20/20 vision but we have to use it here. You seem to think that having other business interests outside of boxing is the equivalent of a dependence on alcohol and drugs and ballooning in weight in between fights. It's well documented, it all caught up with Hatton and the guy was a mess in the end.

I'm not a commissioner or any kind of expert at all, I don't make such decisions but he was given a TUE and there was no problem with this except from some fans (who aren't qualified to understand the issues at hand properly, let's face it). I highly doubt that it enhanced Mayweather's performance to read/nullify Pac's offense and counter at will. I don't think Pac expected Mayweather to have as much pop in his punches, particularly the overhand right and he became more cautious with his offense. If we're talking about the timing of the fight, Pacquiao was scared of blood testing for 6 years despite having numerous tattoos, what changed afterwards? Why did Roach ADMIT that Pac was mostly to blame for the delayed fight? Why did Mayweather - Cotto immediately get made after Cotto left Top Rank? We all know that Bob made that fight because he had no choice, it was now or never to cash in. Why was Pac able to use both arms fully and effectively during the fight? At no point did anybody watching the fight say 'oh he's injured here'. Why did he claim after the fight that he won, if he wanted to use the injury as an excuse? Even Kellerman, who you elude to, was incredulous at the notion of a Pacquiao victory. I can forgive that to an extent as a byproduct of shattered pride.

60-4 at what age? Are you counting like when he was 14 or something? What kind of amateur career can you have before 16 years of age that has any relevance? I only used Floyd's example at 16 through to the Olympics to prove that fighters start at lighter weights mostly, pro or not. Are you telling me that 16 year old Floyd couldn't have replicated or bettered that run against mostly domestic and regional level opponents in the non-heralded divisions? I'm thinking he could have.

Anyway, happy New Year to you. It's only boxing, we don't know these guys personally, we don't know each other personally (or even well) and frankly what we both have to say on the subject really doesn't matter does it? I thought I was being fair when I have Pac down as a certifiable ATG and well within the top 30 but we can all have our say.

 

I think cos he fought longer than needed he had some terrible fights e.g. broner, matthyese kinda took the shine off he should of jus retired after the Bradley fight

 

Absolutely not. You can make an argument for Floyd over Manny and neither of them are #1 all time.

 

I never said "alltime" just of jis generation and the argument is very strong for Manny.

 

Who's Mayweather's? The young inexperienced Canelo maybe?

Should'nt have brought that one up, Pacquiao's caliber of opposition is far better than Mayweather's.

 

Just stop. He gets his dues. He clearly is a great fighter but he clearly ISNT the GOAT.

 

Yeah you can argue for career. Mayweather is undefeated and beat more champions. He beat Manny and beat better versions of some of Manny's best opponents before Manny did.

 

The argument is strong for Mayweather as well. In order the convince me Pac is #1 all time you must first convince me he was #1 of his own era. I'm not convinced.