The Issue Pacman All Time.

Problem is he isnt welterweight champion, he has a trinket that isnt a major belt.

 

His defining wins are Cotto, Hatton, De La Hoya, Marquez, Barrera, Morales and Sasakul. Hatton was finished and over-rated in the first place, De La Hoya was shot and dead at the weight, the Marquez fight he arguable lost and drew the other, Barrera II was past prime as was Morales and he lost one of the 3 aswell.

The weight issue I am willing to give him, but how many titles do you think the likes of Langford and Armstrong would have won if there were junior classes (and in Langford's case he was free to fight for them) and there were alphabet belts?

Langford could conceivably be a 20-time 9 weight world champion if that were the case. Titles mean little, particularly in modern context when there are so many and there are a lot of terrible champions. The most important things are resumé - of which his has a few top-quality wins but is vastly over-rated in depth - and H2H, in which Manny struggles aswell - principly because at 130 and below he wasn't all that great and had a lot of flaws, and at 135/140 and above he's out-sized aswell as matched on true ability by many.

 

just take the average of 10 and 35 and there you have it: top 22.5

 

Great Post...seems like you know your stuff....There were so many past greats who did the same thing outside the alphabet era like McClarnin, Armstrong, Langforde, and Carpentier and faced world class competition....his resume above 130 is sooo overrated...its not only who you beat but also when you beat them and when he beat DLH, cOTTO, and Hatton was convenient considering either they were weight drained or well worn or both!!!

 

whats wrong with waiting. because if he loses to mayweather/mosley, watch how many people will claim he was overrated. to be top 20 or 25, you have to beat the very best of your generation. that would be mayweather, and if mayweather loses to mosely, then he would have to beat mosley.

 

:rofl

I suggest you pack it in and find a new sport.

 

No one currently fighting today should be considered top 25 not Pac-Man not Mayweather not Mosley until either proves they are the best of their generation

honestly no one has the resume currently fighting to be 20-25 and these Pac fans are losing it having him top ten or top 20 considering so many fighters have more steeper resumes, fought when their was only one world champion, and only had 8 weight classes to work with.

 

:good

Only time I disagree is when they're fighting in a real great era, but haven't proven to be the last man standing there yet.

 

Top 20 at the moment.

Top 10 if he beats Mayweather.

 

you gotta be joking there are at least 20 all-time greats with better resumes and he'd have to do more than beat Mayweather to break the top ten let alone top 5....every heard of Ray Robinson, Harry Greb, Henry Armstrong, Willie Pep, Ray Leonard, Roberto dURAN , sAM LANGFORDE, thats just a few fighters he isnt even close to surpassing

 

are you serious he barely sqeeks in the top 30, have you ever watched fighters who fought from more than the last ten yearsatsch

 

you must dont know much about the rich history of boxing, he aint even close to top 15-20, and a win over Mayweather would get him right inside top 20, he is more like top 30ish....so many great fighters fought better competition with deeper resumes.

 

i respect yours as well but, honestly it seems more like you are on the Pac-Man bandwagon instead of believing he belongs that high with conviction....make a top 20 list for me of the best all-time

 

:deal. Good Post.

Even so, I'd say somewhere between 25 and 65, just not quite sure where.

 

top 30 fsho!