I Assume you mean the first part, because guys like mayweather and pacquiao get little credit but people who fought 90 years ago where there is not tthat much footage of are seen as solid atg with locks in the top p4p. Also h2h some get overrated to much, i honestly believe jack dempsey would not win vs vitali, but a lot of posters will say he would ko him early.
Of course but I know for sure that if mayweather and pacquiao had their accomplishments in 1920 and there was only reports,resume, stories and a litttle bit of footage available they would be ranked higher then they are right now.
Pac and Mayweather get plenty of credit..about as much as they deserves given their careers are still going. Are you really basing this opinion on anything or just assuming everyone who posts in classic are like that? Cause they aint champ.
To be honest I have read a couple of threads in classic since i registered here and it appeared that way to me, I know that the people there have great boxingknowledge and that most make fair judgements but it can appaer that way sometimes. Thats why I believe boxer who get a lot critisism get more praise when theri carreer is over, happened to lennox as well i believe and it will also happen with our modern day fighters.
Man, it's a very very very easy argument. Pacquiao's toughest ever opponent wouldn't even rank in Duran's top 10 toughest opponents. Pacquiao has done a lot in the sport. But never faced a genuine, top 50 all time guy. The best fights he's had, in regards to where his opponents were, I'd say, is probably barrera 1, Marquez and Morales 1 You could argue he got his ass handed to him in 2 of those 3 fights. Man, Duran dominated 135 for 10 years, beat everyone in one of the best divisions in the history of boxing, and then moved up 2 clear weight divisions, at the age of 30 (when he was way past his best) and beat probably the 2nd greatest welterweight in the history of boxing, at his peak. He then moved up another 2 divisions, and probably gave the greatest middleweight of all time, probably the toughest fight of his entire career. Forget losing to Leonard. Duran came much closer to actually beating him in reality. Knife edge loss.
It's an argument plenty of people make. You can't be ranked alongside guys like Duran or Leonard when you haven't got into the ring with the (other) dominant guy of your era. Duran got in the ring with 5-6 fighters the level of Mayweather
Making **** up is kind of an addiction to you isnt it? He didnt move two divisions at a time he had numerous fights at 140 and 154 before moving up to 147 and 160.
Duran, jamp up in weight to fight guys at their own weight rather then make them boil down to something he could handle easily, also the level of fighter faught, you can't compare Hattons, Clotteys and Margaritos to Leanard Hearns and Hagler
Duran at 135 would of crush Pacman come on guys he was 72-1. Duran did move up in weight to fight Sugar don't know what is the point when people keep saying he had a couple fights before he had the fight with Sugar that still means he moved up in weight to fight him. 135 to 147 is moving up.
Its moving up nobody said otherwise but theres no need to make **** up by saying he moved up two clear divisions at once.
Duran's wins over Leonard and Barkley are two of the best wins of the last 30-40 years and are far superior to anything on Manny's resume. Duran beating Barkley was similar to what Pacquiao just done to Margarito...only Duran was 37 years old and Barkley wasn't 5'11...he was 6'1 and hit like a mule at 160lbs.