The Greater Fighter - Pacquiao Or SRL??

He was 20 year old skinny kid who had raw talent, but was very undeveloped at that time. Big turn around in his career was when he joined Freddie Roach in 2001. And then he started making his mark destroying Jorge Julio on Lewis/Tyson undercard, and then went on to upset Barrera.

I don't think these two stoppage losses, should be held against Pacquiao when rating him. As i said he moved up in weight become alot stronger and more developed. As evidence by the amazing career Pacquiao went on to have, and he wasn't stopped for another 13 years by a punch that would of knocked out an elephant.

I mean are we gonna hold it against Leonard, for pretty much losing to Hearns in their 2nd fight ? or getting beating up by Norris when he was past his prime ? i don't think many people hold these fights against Leonard when rating him.

There is no difference except it's the opposite end of the spectrum, lets rate these fighters on when they were at there best. Not when they are 17 and 20, or when Leonard was past his prime.

 

Well, Jorge Julio was well past his best and fighting above his best weight, so we shouldn't really count that win on Pac's resume, either.

(Or, we should, but note the context and factors that might diminish just how significant a win really is)

Pac had defeated an objectively good lineal champion in Sakasul, indicating that he was a world class fighter at that moment. Then, he turned around and got beaten up and stopped in three by a relatively unspectacular fighter not too long after. In terms of rating Pacquiao's chances at flyweight against other historically great flyweights, this absolutely needs to be taken into consideration. In terms of all time placement, it still counts, since we need to take into account a fighter's entire career, even if we have to acknowledge that there are mitigating circumstances surrounding some of their losses.

It's not the be all and end all...But, it's something that needs to be factored in, imo. You have to take the bad with the good.

 

Yes i agree somewhat but my argument is that Pacquiao's best weight isn't Flyweight, he was young/raw talented fighter at that point with alot of flaws. I think it's obvious to see that once Pacquiao went with Freddie Roach, and put weight on and grew into a man that he improved 10 folds.

I understand your point and i get what your trying to say, but i think there is some flaws behind that logic. Because if your using that logic of looking at a fighters "Whole career". Then you might aswell say Sugar Ray Robinson's losses to Terry Downes, Denny Moyer, later in his career should be used to diminish his ranking aswell.

When i'm rating fighters i rate them when they were at their peak or best, Pacquiao's prime started in 2002 he probably reached his ultimate peak in 2006-2008, and i would say he started to slow down somewhat by 2011. And i think that's what he should be rated on, when your comparing him with fighters of the past or present.

Likewise Sugar Ray Leonard's prime was 1978-1982, and that's what he should be rated on when pitting him against other fighters. When people are rating Leonard, there not taking into account Leonard's dubious draw vs Hearns, or when he got beat up by Norris. They rate him on his prime Welterweight days and his amazing comeback win over Hagler, so if they are using that same logic we should also use the same logic for Pacquiao.

 

Ultimately, I do take SRR's late career losses into consideration, at least when rating him as an all time middleweight. They happened when he was at middleweight and a number of them occurred at a point when he was still world ranked. They don't necessarily impact his all time ranking, but they occurred and are noted.

In the case of Leonard, yeah...he probably got a bit lucky in securing a draw against Hearns in the second fight. But, he had Hearns hurt badly twice and made the fight close against someone who would subsequently defeat Hill to become a LH champion. That's a pretty forgivable loss, all things considered.

If you're rating overall greatness, then the entire career needs to be noted. Especially since factors like how a fighter performed post prime can positively impact a fighter's rating if they turned in great results.

 

That's fair enough you made some good points, i don't really have much else to say on the matter. But nice debating with you, you conducted yourself well and kept it respectful. So no complaints take it easy.

 

Ray was not prime in 1978. I think 1981 was the start his prime, and it would have been later but he retired.. 1980 was just early for a prime, but since we don't have more from Ray after 1982 they seem to make his prime earlier.

 

My list (10 -15)...

11. Roy Jones Junior
12. Joe Gans
13. Sugar Ray Leonard
14. Floyd Mayweather
15. Manny Pacquaio

So, pretty close.

 

The whole thread is in different Era to begin with....

 

That’s fair criterion - and I guess it’s just as fair for the weighting of the quality of opposition to be possibly exceeded at some point by greater quantity married to a uniformly high quality - even if the lesser quantity involves the higher quality.

An extreme, self serving hypothetical:- Fighter A has the single fight victory over a prime Ali quality level fighter. Fighter B has 5 victories over a prime Frazier quality level fighter. Their victories over lesser comp. otherwise cancel each other out.

Which fighter would you rate over the other?

Also, what exactly was the quality of Duran and Hagler when Ray beat them? Not a rhetorical question - rather, an open question.

Bigger names can be attached to a resume but we know the fighters in question weren’t necessarily at their best - so the actual quality they presented should be properly calibrated rather than just riding on their names and plugging in the prime value of their scalps.

Again, I have to repeat, this is an excellent thread premise with ideal subjects up for comparison - it certainly isn’t a black and white debate that lends to a clear cut conclusion IMO.

 

Dynamicpuncher, you’ve made some very reasonable points. You have said that those loses occurred prior to Pacquiao’s prime. In that case you’re probably right that they shouldn’t be held against him too much. He was certainly one of the finest fighters we’ve seen in the past few decades. I am happy that his career has apparently ended and that he hasn’t taken a major beating in his last few fights. That has happened to too many greats over the years. It will happen to GGG if he fights Canelo. I hope that he stays retired and enjoys his life and his family.—Mark

 

I’ve posted my list on the 20 Greatest Fighters thread. Pernell Whitaker was an outstanding lightweight and a great welterweight too.