So who is P4P #1 now then?

Fought everyone?!

Try again.

 

Pacquiao IS p4p#1 whether you agree or like it or whatever.

:hi:





And Calzaghe IS #3. :smoke

 

Actually that's a very good response Pacman and what you say makes perfect sense but doesn't sit 100% with me and my interpretation of the Wiki article.

My interpretation of this wiki quote is pretty much what my original view was. SRR was a better quality and he couldn't beat those HW's at the time as he was but if he was scaled up in size (or them down) he probably would have been able to hence why they said his quality was superior.

A good example would be RJJ. When he moved up he lost some of his speed but it was still enough to get the job done clearly being far faster than Ruiz. (Imagine him just a few more inches/lbs heavier naturally) so restricting fighters based purely on their weight classes' style like your lewis argument just doesn't sit well with me. (Lewis was actually pretty fast & mobile back in the day too, it was Manny Steward who slowed his movement down and got him to play a little more strategic taking advantage of the weights limitations which is a reason prime Tyson was so effective)

I think it's more a case of my interpretation differing simply because I try to look at things from a statistical/mathmatical perspective. I probably get that perspective because I'm a big motor racing fan too, particuarly bikes where power to weight ratio comes into play so I apply that style of analysis to boxers and their physical attributes because it leaves less to the individuals subjective opinion on a fighter.

None the less if that's what Wiki says & what you say makes sense then I'll accept I was wrong, you were right even if I don't wholly agree I see your perspective and logic :good

On a side note you feel Pac is above JC P4P right? I was just wondering if you wouldn't mind giving your opinion on why/how? I have to admit that when I saw Pac vs JMM #2 I gave it to JMM but that was the one and only time I saw it. Then again the same could be said for Joe vs Bernard - but again I must stress I am not a Joe 'fan' per-say. I love watching him box but I have no preference win or lose.

 

I hope you read the part about how 'scaling' is impossible and inapplicable because it would change the fighter's inherent physical qualities thus rendering any attempt to do so futile and meaningless. That was the crux of it anyway.


I feel Manny Pacquiao is p4p#1, Juan Manuel Marquez is p4p#2, Bernard Hopkins is p4p#3, and Joe Calzaghe is p4p#4.

I believe Pacquiao is #1 because in less time than Calzaghe (who has been a world champion continuously since 1997), he has built up a stronger resume, is a greater all-round fighter, and has achieved far more. With those three things in mind, Pac is a clear number 1.

Pacquiao's 2003 win over Marco Antonio Barrera beats anything on Calzaghe's resume IMO. At the time, MAB was p4p#3 and coming off the back of wins over Morales, Tapia, Kelley and Hamed - ie the best run of form in his entire career. In the two fights immediately after the Pac fight, Barrera stopped Paulie Ayala then beat Morales again. Make no mistake, this was peak Barrera despite what the haters say. And this was no Calzaghe-Hopkins sneaked decision on workrate, this was explosive and breath-taking absolute dominance of a peak ATG. It is the second greatest win of this century IMO after Hopkins-Trinidad.

In addition to that, Pac has a draw and a win over Marquez, who is a better fighter p4p than Kessler, Lacy, Eubank, Mitchell, or anyone else on Calzaghe's resume.

Pac's first win over Morales is an absurdly underrated victory IMO. People say he was shot, but this is nonsense. He gave the greatest performance of his career against Pacquiao in March '05, then was beaten by the weight against an inferior fighter in Raheem, then fought Pac again less than a year after their 1st fight. Can a guy go from producing the greatest performance of his career in March to being so shot that a win over him holds no merit only 10 months later? I cannot accept that. And I certainly cannot accept it when you consider how Morales performed on the night. Erik showed real heart to take the fight to Pacquaio early on and fought like a lion, but he was simply totally outgunned by a fighter fast maturing into something special. Rather than Erik being shot in that fight, that was the fight that ended him as an effective force. First time he had been properly knocked down, first time he had been stopped. He was broken mentally and beaten physically - which was no mean feat. Erik is a legendary warrior. You could see that by the third fight - only then was he no longer the same man.

Also, although Barrera was way past prime by the time of his 2nd fight with Pac, look at the difference in the way Pac handled him to how JMM did 6 months earlier. Barrera floored JMM and pushed him all the way in a very competitive fight that was far closer than the scorecards indicate. Against Pacquiao, he was never in the fight again.

So if you consider his resume with wins over HOF lock fighters Barrera, Morales and Marquez, and set this against Calzaghe's, with the only wins over quality opponents to be Hopkins, Kessler and Lacy (and it should be obvious that Marquez, Barrera and Morales are all significantly greater fighters than Kessler or Lacy), I don't see how Calzaghe's resume stacks up.

If you look at achievement, Pacquiao stretches his lead. Pac is a FIVE-WEIGHT world champion, the only man in history, in history, to hold world titles at flyweight and lightweight. To me, that absolutely shits all over holding one WBO title for 9 years!

And I think Pacquiao is a more talented, more skilled fighter. People still talk about Manny as if he was the same rough and raw whirlwind that blazed into town v MAB in 2003. Really, he has added so so much to his game since then. His performances in the second Marquez fight and against Diaz when you consider he was fighting THIRTY POUNDS above his original fighting weight (a staggering number at the lower weights) were brilliant IMO. I'm not saying he was a clear winner against JMM, but even to fight so well and make it so close was evidence of great skill and ability IMO, as Marquez is an elite fighter too.

For me, Calzaghe relies too much on workrate, fitness, stamina, energy, activity, whatever you want to call it. He seems to overcome opponents on workrate and will, I don't see how he is a fighter of real skill at all, certainly not on the level of a JMM or a Hopkins. Had Calzaghe ever fought a peak ATG like a 1994-96 Roy Jones or a 2001ish Hopkins, I think he would have been cruelly exposed. Workrate and strength wouldn't have been enough then as they could have matched him in that department, plus they have far greater skills, power and accuracy. I cannot envisage how Calzaghe could have beaten either man at all.

I have Marquez above him as I think Marquez is simply a superior fighter to Joe all-round in every way.

I have Hopkins above him as I believe Hopkins beat Calzaghe by 1 point, and because outwith that fight Hopkins's last 3 wins are Tarver, Wright and Pavlik. Calzaghe's are over the corpse of Roy Jones, Kessler and... Peter Manfredo. Therefore, Hopkins has been taking on tougher fights and beating better opponents - the essence of the pound-for-pound rankings.


I think Calzaghe is a very talented but slightly limited fighter, but he still has the zero because (a) he is very good at what it is he does, and (b) his resume is weak, he has not fought enough top quality dangerous opponents in his career.

Even if you disagree, I hope you see that this is not "hate" nor anything like it, just my honest and genuine opinion on fighters whose careers I have followed very closely.

:bbb

 

If it was purely ability, then Marquez, Pacquiao and Hopkins would all be above Calzaghe.

 

Manny has a better resume.

 

Of course not! We're here to debate if we can't debate then why are we here? Not every disagreement has to be hate fuelled. You clearly know your boxing inside and out Pacfan + have a great love for the sport how can I do anything but not respect that??? You don't listen to what other people say, make your own judgements and have the background knowledge to make those judgements based on that. I have found alot of respect for you tonight

I have to admit that your flyweight / lightweight argument is 100% impossible to argue against as well! :good