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

We do know about them because we do the research on their careers and the era neccessary to know about them. We don't simply read who won their fights based on Boxrec and draw our conclusions from that (otherwise there would be a lot of unanswered questions given the differences in eras), we do the research of their careers, of their particular fights, of the implications of those fights, etc.

A guy like Zab would not look like an ATG even on paper or in any sense. I don't see how you came to that conclusion in the first place. Could've used a better example, but I get your point nonetheless. Either way, upon reading contemporary reports it'd be rather easy to determine that Zab was a second rate fighter considered how he is recieved, or simply looking at his record against top opposition. The same is true of fighters of any era, they aren't simply romanticized, they're criticized just as handily as the fighters of today (many of them even moreso with the advantage of hindsight) unless you're simply reading a biased/uneducated report, which is why extensive research is neccessary.

Again, it all comes down to research. With further research comes further understanding of the eras, the fighters, the fights, the circumstances, etc. Not that complicated really.

 

Sasakul was an excellent technician, we can all agree there, noone's trying to diminish that, but Yuri was clearly faded and past his prime by the rematch. He had already started to fade by the first fight (his magnificent prime was relatively short) where he beat Sasakul in very competitive, highly technical affair. Yuri was a level above Sasakul prime for prime.

Still, that's not to take away from Sasakul, as Yuri was IMO one of the best Flyweights ever in his short prime. That win, given the circumstances, was probably one of Pac's biggest on paper up until he beat Barrera, I just don't consider it very highly because of the way the fight unfolded and because of how inconsistent Pac was at the weight. That was more or less all he accomplished there due to his young age, lack of experience, weight-draining, etc. It just irks me when people act as if he was this terror who ran through the divisions from Flyweight to Welterweight, rather than just a very talented fighter who started off at a low weight at a very young age when he had yet to grow into his body or skills, and who's been able to have success at different weights (but has never really proven his superior over the class at any weight).

 

Thats because Floyd is a ***** :thumbsup

 

I think you are being a little disrespectful to Marquez and Morales here, they are both great fighters and it is no real black mark to go 3 wins (2 KOs), 1 draw, 1 loss (pts) in 5 fights with them both.

I am in agreement with you that Pac is not on the same level as Whitaker yet, not by a considerable way IMO, for me he would still have to beat both Hatton and Mayweather to be considered as great a fighter, but your reason of having trouble with "Marquez and Morales level" fighters really hit a sour note. Whitaker had uncomfortable nights of his own like Roger Mayweather, Ramirez I and McGirt I - OK, Pea ended up getting the better of these fights (despite the Ramirez decision), but these three guys were not even on the same level as Morales and Marquez IMO.

 

Is it Pac's fault if Morales faded after several months. If that's your argument, I can also say that Pac had just climbed up to 130 when Morales beat him. How can you explain Morales's impressive performance against Diaz -- a fight which he almost won.

By the way, take a look at these records between the two fighters:

Whitaker:

This content is protected

+

This content is protected

+

This content is protected

= 46
rounds boxed 379 : KO% 36.96​

His 1 win was nullified bec he was found positive of cocaine.
​

​

Pacquiao:

This content is protected

+

This content is protected

+

This content is protected

= 53
rounds boxed 291 : KO% 67.92​

​

Who has better record as shown in this data given the criteria you mentioned like "dominance, quality of opposition beaten, longevity, consistency, ability to beat diverse styles, ability to overcome adversities etc."? As you know, Pacquiao is still active.

 

Whitaker's uncomfortable night with Roger Mayweather saw him take 9 or 10 rounds in his 12th professional fight.

His fight with Ramirez should have been around 9-3 when Whitaker had a broken hand.

His fight with Buddy was close, granted, though not Pac-Marquez close. It was close but clear.

I don't see how I'm being unfair to Marquez and Morales. Whitaker beat guys like Chavez and Nelson easily, why should he have trouble with Marquez and Morales?

And for the record, I don't see Marquez as being a level up on Buddy McGirt. And the McGirt that Whitaker beat was a better fighter than the faded Morales that Pac beat.

 

I can explain it by Diaz being a pretty average fighter.

Pac was moving up when he fought Morales but it's not like Morales was the bigger stronger guy in there.

Pea to this stage has had a more dominant prime, beat a higher level of fighters given the stage of the careers of the fighters fought, has shown ability to master all kinds of styles and has overcome adversities (e.g. knockout when behind on scorecards, turning back the clock when past prime, fighting with broken hands, jaw etc.).

Pac is still active, and at this stage, he is not really up for comparison to Whitaker.

 

Allow me to answer that.
In term of dominance Pernell has proved he was one of the best lightweight of all time, the lightweight division being probably the most competitive and most talented in boxing history. He unified the division without any competition, considering of course your vision of the first Ramirez fight which I think Sweet Pea clearly won.

Quality of opposition is directly connected to some points we must consider first as the level of the opponents and whether they are in their prime or not. In that case, Pacquiao has not many names in his resume unfortunately. Pernell beat Chavez and, in my eyes, Oscar De La Hoya as well. None of Manny's previous opponent is at the same level as those.

Longevity now. Pernell defended his IBF lightweight titles 9 times and WBC welterweight title 10 times if I remember well. What about Manny ? Not so much. But hey let's wait until his career ends before talking about longevity.

As for consistency, ability to beat diverse styles, ability to overcome adversities I think Manny is great at those. He does what he does with everything he has and he is just the best at that.
But so was Pernell ! You don't take on a prime Oscar and lose a controversial decision then take on a prime powerful Trinidad to lose which could arguably be his only professional losse if you don't have the ability to overcome adversities !

No one can judge a fighter by looking at his resume on boxrec. Plus, when we are talking about P4P all time greatness, we must take losses into account. Pacquiao's greatness is unquestionable but to compare him to Whitaker is not fair, at least not yet.
Example : Lewis's greatness is a bit tarnished because of his KO losses against bums. Manny is just like him. Except he still has time to make it to ATG status. Beating Haton and Floyd would help in that.

 

Mayweather floored him. Neither Marquez nor Morales could floor Pac in 49 rounds. Was the Ramirez fight really as wide as 9-3? I have only saw highlights but my friend who has seen it says it was a bit closer than that, it is only made out to be a wide domination now because of the result. I like Buddy McGirt, I rate him, but IMO he is not the same standard as Marquez or Morales. On the night of the second Pac-Morales fight, Morales would've beaten anyone else in the world at that weight IMO. He fought like a lion but was simply outgunned by a fast-maturing great. The fact that Whitaker beat Chavez and Nelson so handily is one of the main reasons I think Whitaker still deserves to be ranked significantly higher than Pacquiao, but Pac went 3-1-1 against Marquez and Morales, I don't think that is much of a reason to cite when explaining why you think he is not in Pea's league. Marquez and Morales are great fighters at their weights, they should not be degraded by being used as reasons against a high rating of Pacquiao. And Pac annihilated a Barrera at the apex of his career, he has had great performances against great opponents too.

Throw into the mix that Pac was a former flyweight world champion mixing it up at feather and superfeather with guys of the calibre of Barrera, Marquez and Morales, and it paints a fuller picture of Pacquiao's abilities.

 

True. But you are acting like Whitaker was in his prime. You don't want me to go into Pac's pre-prime day's I'm sure.

I thought so. I've heard some say 10-2, others 8-4. 9-3 is about right. You can render a 7-5 if you give Ramirez every benefit of the doubt.

After seeing Raheem beat him, I tell you what, he would not be beating an 130 pound version of Buddy McGirt, even if he was better prepared subsequently against Pac.

What makes you think Marquez is better than McGirt? Again, I think from a stylistic standpoint, McGirt would beat Marquez. I don't think Chris John beat Marquez but he made it close with his good boxing ability and I can see Buddy causing similar problems though in a more unorthodox way (not so much lateral movement but lots of shifty, subtle head and body moves).

Do you acknowledge that Morales was past his best both times Pac beat him, and faded badly in the third fight? Surely you must.

As for Marquez, he is an excellent fighter, but I don't think he is as good as many think he is.

The Barrera win is his best win by a long way imo.

A former flyweight who had yet to reach his peak and became actually bigger and stronger than Barrera and Morales when fighting them at feather and superfeather.

 

:huhMcGirt was just as good as either IMO, better than the Morales Pac beat.

 

Whitaker, easily in almost every category mentioned. What was the point of that post? It proved nothing at all for your case except that Pacquiao has had more fights.

 

I had it 10-2, it wasn't even as competitive as the Chavez fight IMO, though Whitaker did fight in a more defensive mode,

He was a top 5 P4P fighter when Pea beat him, and was clearly the bigger man in the ring both times they fought as well (in the rematch Pea gave him a thorough beating and damn near stopped him down the stretch). I think McGirt was a more versatile fighter than either Morales or Marquez at his best, though his career wasn't as full as that of Morales due to the strength of the WW division around the time.

 

I find it difficult to respond directly to your points as I am a passionate dis-believer in the concept of deciding who was a more difficult opponent by imagining one fighter shrinks or the other grows, so I'll leave that point aside. I'll only reiterate that I don't think McGirt or Ramirez were quite on the same level as the Marquez and the Morales that Pac fought.

IMO, the weight beat Morales as much as Raheem did. It was the 2nd Pac fight which broke Morales, that was the reason he was a shadow in the 3rd. The first knockdowns of his career, the first stoppage of his career, the toll of the battles, the mental effects of being decisively beaten by a younger, faster, stronger opponent - this was what caused the difference in Morales from the 2nd to the 3rd fights with Pac. Sure he was past-prime even by the 2nd fight, but he still fought gamely. Only by the 3rd fight was it beyond him to do this.

A former flyweight world champ competing with great fighters at featherweight is a stunning achievement IMO. How many times in history has that been done?

 

Not in that context it isn't. Pacquiao was a young kid as a Flyweight, he still had a lot of growing up to do. Not just mentally, but physically as well, not to mention he was terribly weight-drained there, which is why he moved up two divisions directly to 122 after being blasted out by Singsurat (where he looked about as dead in the ring as the De La Hoya we just saw). His natural weight was clearly around 130 or so, where he fit the weight class well in terms of relative size and it suited his body perfectly.

He's a fighter that started out at a weight well below his natural one, much like Duran, because of the fact that he was still a young kid growing up. It's not as if he's been a natural Flyweight accomplishing all of this at higher weights, which seems to be what many think.