Pacquiao knocking on Whitaker's door as far as resume is concerned

He needs to beat Hatton and Mayweather to move above Whitaker.

 

and the fact that you consider how a 19 year old no technique boxer KO'ng a lineal champ shows your lack of appreciation of the pac....

well, will you please educate me who are/were this haugen and ramirez it seems you are so much into it.. were they pound per pound material, lineal champions, hofers?? it seems i'll learn from you.

 

Your first sentence made no sense at all. As for the rest:

Both were more accomplished fighters than Sasakul, and both were beaten in a far more convincing manner than Pacquiao beat Sasakul IMO, given the circumstances.

Haugen was a LW and LWW champion (one of the most consistent fixtures around the weight class during the period) that held wins over guys like Hector Camacho, Vinny Pazienza, and Ray Mancini. Whitaker completely schooled and outclassed him, shutting him out on the cards in one of the most dominant and impressive pure boxing displays ever caught on tape.

Ramirez was an even better fighter IMO, one who arguably held a win over a peak Alexis Arguello, though he lost the official decision in a very close matchup. He also held wins over the best LW puncher of the era in Edwin Rosario (KO4) and Cornelius Boza-Edwards, while being one of the most consistent fixtures in the LW division throughout the 80's. He was a Castillo level fighter in terms of ability, albeit in a stronger era so he didn't get the breaks that Castillo did. Retired with a record of 102 wins, 82 by KO, with 9 defeats. Whitaker also beat him in one of the most dominant pure boxing displays ever caught on film, after being blindly robbed in the first fight where he won at least 10 rounds.

 

Great post! YES! I agree.

 

wow. great lecture. thanks.

 

Like I said, I wasnt around that time so I dont know how highly regarded those fighters were. For example, he may have beaten guys who were considered ATG's then but boxing had what, 25years of history? Im pretty sure 100years of history would have higher standards for ATG status than 25years...

Most people would have just read those names in a book as opponents, if I were to right a book now I could make out how Emanuel Lucero was this tough undefeated kid with promising talent who Pac demolished. 80 years from now without tapes they really wont know much different.

I dont disagree with Langford being in peoples top 10 ATG, I just find it hard to believe that you can accurately rate this stuff without being around the scene.

 

Not really. All you need to do is take a look at their accomplishments/resumes and read contemporary reports.

These guys aren't used to bolster Langford's resume, they were legitimate top fighters of the era with their own legacies who Langford happened to beat (most of them multiple times), a simple amount of research can back that. All one would need to do would be to do a small bit of research on Lucero to see that he was a non-factor in terms of being a relevant opponent on an all time scale.

Research is key.

 

Great post.. Pacquiao is definitely climbing the ATG ranks and has the chance to surpass those like Whitaker and become one of the 10 greatest boxers to grace the sport..

 

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

This content is protected

 

Not to rain on the Pac parade, but here's some sobering facts:

1. Sasakul was NOT the best flyweight in the world at the time. Lineal yes, but Mark Too Sharp Johnson was the better flyweight and he would have mashed Pac at that stage.

2. Losses COUNT when discussing all time status. Even discounting his earlier career losses, as he was pre-prime, Pac lost to Morales. When, in a month of Sundays would Whitaker lose to a Morales level fighter?

3. Contested fights COUNT when discussing all time status. When, in a month of Sundays would Whitaker ever arguably lose or draw to a Juan Manuel Marquez level fighter?

4. The stage fighters are at in their careers is important to assessing the level of their resume. Pac's wins against Morales and DLH, whilst looking great on paper, don't look so great when you look at HOW those fighters fought Pac and what they had left when they fought him. Morales was clearly on the fade and DLH was a walking corpse. Whitaker fought guys like Chavez, Nelson, McGirt, DLH when they were all p4p rated guys and (more importantly than perception in p4p ratings) actually were still near or at their primes.


I think Pac is a great fighter, but we need to put something into context. He hasn't dominated a single weight class he's been in, despite showing that he is more than competent over a LOT of weight classes.

I think to really scale the all time charts, he needs to prove himself better than his peers in or around his best weight and or at the very least have some astonishing wins against the likes of Hatton and Mayweather when they are at or near their best.

As it stands, there's no way a fighter that struggles with Morales and Marquez level fighters can touch Sweet Pea.

 

I know of those fighters but I dont know about them, and neither do you. You read what they done but you werent there to see it unfold in front of you. Im sure Zab Judah for example looks like an ATG on paper and if I simply read about his accomplishments, he would look like an ATG. How many fights have you seen of those guys.

 

SRR has 19 losses. Duran 16. Losses dont mean jack, it happens to everyone...its who you faced and who you beat.

Those guys are smaller than pea. Morales is a top 5 ATG BW. You think Sweetpea wouldnt struggle with a top 5 LW?

Besides everybody struggles time to time, Ali struggled with Norton, Duran struggled withde jesus, Floyd with Castillo. Those guys arent much greater than Morales.

 

No its WHEN you lose that counts. Losing when you are old and past it, doesn't mean much, losing in your prime, DOES mean something.

Duran and SRR had their losses in their prime too, but they were fighting quite a bit more frequently than Pac has and lost fights to better fighters imo.

 

Styles makes fights my friend, and you must also take note that Pac is still improving after each fight.. Morales is a great and theres no shame in losing to him, as he did rebound back and KO'd him twice.. Also, JMM is one of the greater technicians in the sport today.. Most of your post is bull****.. Many greats have lost plenty of fights..