The Henry Armstrong our era?

Fixed...and yeah, I agree.

(I'm not insulting Pac, really...I just think McLarnin's trajectory more closely resembles Pac in terms of climbing weights from fly to welterweight).

 

You're literally glossing over everything.

Pac turned pro at 16, he was young, too. By the time Pac was 18, Pac was the LINEAL FLYWEIGHT CHAMPION after beating a very good fighter in Sasakul, idiot.
Pac was successful from Flyweight all the way to Light Middleweight - that is the point. You already basically refuted yourself - Georges was growing quickly and his natural weight is in the bigger weight classes.
Pacquiao on the other hand was a naturally small, malnourished, heavily poverty striken guy who was full height in his earliest stage of career.
All of this then just emphasises that Pacquiao IS the Henry Armstrong of our era.

If we're talking pre-prime losses and KO's, Georges had 7 losses, 5 of them being KO losses before he got around to winning the European title, idiot.

Carpentier transported into a modern ring would be a Super Middleweight, perhaps a middleweight.

Don't act like you know boxing just because you know the name 'Georges Carpentier'. I know who he is and know old timers.
Side note: I have a bias towards French boxers because I lived there for 5 years, speak French.

 

That's a good shout!

 

:rofl

Admit it DagoWap, you gotta give credit where it's due, this post by Young Terror is golden.

 

armstrong was on ariza ped shakes?
time traveler?

 

"after beating a very good fighter in Sasakul, idiot. "
sasakul?

 

That's a possibility actually. He fought a lot in the 40's...when the PED era became big.

 

Sasakul was a beast. Elite Flyweight, watch him.

 

i would have thought sasakul was a place

 

Sakasul was a pretty solid guy.

It could be argued that Pac caught lightning in a bottle and tagged an overconfident opponent with something big after the latter had established control, but it's a good win over a guy who won the title over a really great flyweight in Yuri Arbachakov.

It could also be argued that Sakasul's main legacy was based on the fact that a style that would have always troubled YA, making him the Vernon Forrest of the flyweight division. But whatever...it's a nice win over a good fighter.

I don't think Pac was really all that great of a flyweight himself, though. He got smoked by Medgoen only a couple of fights into his reign and probably gets walked over by some of the better flyweights of previous eras. He's a more formidable fighter as he moves up, that's for sure.

 

There's nothing but ignorance in that post..:verysad

 

wouldn't turning down over $40 million because of a drug test be AMPLE evidence if any other human on the planet declined????
the lack of logic behind it is funny and baffling all at once.

 

Yes he was that good. He had a arguably a top 3 win of the 1990s. And he was 28 years old undefeated when he met Pacquiao.

Meanwhile Pacquiao was a malnourished teenager, but still finished him. That's pure raw talent.

 

The point of the thread is Pacquiao has fought good and great fighters from 112-147.

And he did it with carrying his power all the way up to 140 pounds.

Its Henry Armstrong like. Its Roberto Duran like. He's one of the top 15 or so fighters ever.

 

the number 1 ped user ever?
agreed