Was 2009 Manny Pacquiao 1 of those special fighters like 1994 RJJ & 1989 Sweet Pea?

Are you talking the kind of elite performance that makes people say "only a handful of guys between 160 and 175 would be favoured over a prime rjj" you mean as in they looked extremely elite h2h?

If that is the case then i'd say no, pac isn't on that level imo, he still gets picked against in fantasy matchups all the time

 

I agree with the TS. He knows about significant events in boxing and he knows how to present in a rightful manner, not in a ******* way. This should not be ground to irritating responds of the *****s because these are facts. Pacquiao defeating Hatton in his undefeated, comfortable weight class and Pacquiao defeating Cotto in his natural and superior weight class, both deserve appropriate recognition. The same respect to Roy Jones and Whitaker.

Great Job TS!

 

This one is completely irrelevant to the thread discussion. Well, to respond your nonesense suggestion, how do you react when Pacquiao defeats Bradley, Berto or Ortiz? Maybe you would say fighting Unexperienced Boxers, right? Being a hater will always find a way to say "fighting old, drained, unexperienced young, past prime, not anymore the same, ..or not HOF" atsch

 

No.

 

Then give me a fighter who could defeat Hatton in that manner in that weight, and Cotto in that manner and in that weight? Haters will always consider all Pacquiao's opponents as mentioned above + Fantasy fights....atsch

 

That's what i'm saying, he doesn't get props as a h2h monster. Whether that's due to fanboyness or not I can't say.

At 140 i'm not sure who could have destroyed hattno in that manner to be honest. I'm confident pea shuts him out and chavez wears him down late but a destruction like that? Unsure.

Cotto would lose to a good few ww's in just as destructive a manner imo. It was a great victory p4p wise but as I said earlier, pac isn't an automatic favourite in fantasy fights.

At 135-140 maybe he would have been but he moved up to ww and that's such a rich division it's hard for anyone to be considered a h2h monster.

 

Using Emile Griffith for that example made me think of Dick Tiger. He's another that could be used. One of the all time greats and one of the best middleweights, but he too had his limitations that made him more vulnerable against a certain type of fighter.

 

Well going down my list:

Fitz in his destruction of n.p right up until beating gentleman jim was a force.
Langford, at times looked devastating but apparently carried a lot of opponents to secure a rematch, hard to gauge his peak.
Robinson, as a ww noone gets favoured over him. Beating la motta for the mw crown was amazing in the fashion he did.
Greb, hard to say but from reports his beating of tunney was a masterclass.
Louis, methodical, systematic and always found a way to win.
Armstrong, against ross he apparently looked legendary.
Charles, beating moore I guess.
Pep, many reports of opponents being unable to hit him.
Ali. The what's my name fight.
Duran was a phenom at lw
Gans, by reports was amazingly dominant.
B. Leonard, same as above.
Walker, not sure if he was ever mega dominant.
Tunney, fight 1 v dempsey looked amazing.
Moore, not sure if he's one of the grinding down types.
Leonard, rematch against duran looked sublime. Most of his big wins were through attrition really.
Pea, as detailed by yourself.
Burley, has been described as a superb technician with a granite chin.

Not really sure what i'm trying to say here now. Kind of lost my focus lol. I mean there are guys outside my top 30 who could fit this criteria.

Locce, mayweather a lot of the defensive greats maybe?

Yeah i've totally lost myself here now. Feel like i'm rambling.

 

He had 2 very good victories..

The Cotto victory imo, gave him that extra lil spark he needed to be considered in that category.

The Hatton victory was good but Ricky was clearly shot after the Floyd fight...He got rocked by a Left hook by Lazcano in his very next fight...

had he fought a Shane Mosley (or Mosley type) in 2009 then I would put him on that level..

With just the Cotto fight I can't say he is at all...

Love the KO over Hatton though!

 

I think so

 

Yes.

 

I don't buy this argument that once a boxer was defeated, he's not anymore the same (unless badly injured). This is a very lame excuse. Anything can happen within a split of a second delay of your punch or evasion. At the end of the day, a boxer still wants to train and revenge. Pacquiao was badly defeated 3 times, cried out with body shots. Cotto was badly defeated by Margarito but I think he is still next to Pacquiao in their division as a very strong welterweight (unless Mayweather wants to fight him which is unlikely).

 

Right and I understand that..

Of course, just because a fighter is defeated doesn't mean he is not the same...

But I referenced the Lazcano fight in support of this..

Lazcano is not and was not a top fighter at 140, at the time and he was able to rock Hatton AND he was not a hard puncher (or considered to be) ...

He gave Ricky a bunch of fits at times!

This supports what I said, in that HATTON WAS CLEARLY NOT THE SAME FIGHTER HE WAS BEFORE FIGHTING FLOYD:hat