What does Pac have over Ross in rating.

Apart from going up in weight Manny has done nothing to get near top 10.

Like a weight ****ed ODLH, a shot Hatton, a shot Margarto, a weight ****ed Cotto, a shot Mosley, an uninterested Clottey, please.

Pushed ALL THE WAY by JMM.

 

A 'shot' Hatton? A 'weight ****ed' Cotto? Get the **** out of here, imbecile. atsch

 

Sharp as a ginsu.

 

I need to look into ross, mclarnin and canzoneri in more detail clearly. It seems the rating of all 3 go hand in hand.

My latest top 25 list included none of these names :$:$

Just had a cursory glance and ross's prime very much mirrored whittakers with slightly better names involved. Even the epic final battle with armstrong is a bit like pea's loss to tito.

How have I overlooked this guy so clearly? Pea sits proudly at number 15 on my list so by default ross has to be atleast in my top 15 right?

The question I then ask is should mclarnin and canzoneri rank above hagler and hoya?

As for the actual thread debate if pac beats the winner of ortiz/floyd i'm saying he's overtaken pea and cracked my top 15 also.

 

I don't like lists but I think Pacquaio rates higher, but I don't rate McLarin or Garcia that highly

 

Only thing I want to say is this (no agenda, just this only, nothing else)

Pacquiao's win over Barrera is great, if we're going to say it's not a great version of Barrera then we are really nit picking and I hope that the same will apply for every fighter in history when assessments are being made.




On a sidenote, I totally agree that loads of Pac's wins have not been over fighters who were in good form, especially these recent fights.

 

the modern concept of a 'shot' fighter or whatever is halaaarious, if you lose a fight or have been in a couple wars you're now shot and somehow less viable as a win. When Armstrong whipped Ross you don't see people saying **** like "SHOT DRAINED FRACTION OF WHAT HE WAS BEFORE" etc... It's ludicrous. And you'd expect people on this forum to realize the problem with it because they have perspective on past fighters who did lose or even get K.O.'d brutally and come back to have great careers and fights. Hopefully as time goes on people will realize this and you won't have knowledgeable posters like sweet scientist saying some goofy **** like 'Pacquiao isn't a top 50 boxer of all time" and the like.

 

Pacquiao fought in a better era and beat better fighters. He took on tougher challenges that only in hindsight, after he dominated them, you can reach to take anything away from them.

 

You know what, part of me thinks that had pac been around in 1920 and won the championship from flyweight to welterweight he'd be thought of a hell of a lot higher than top 50.

 

I rate Ross higher.......but Pac is great because I rate MAB, JMM and Morales high...

 

But Pacquiao did not win legit championships for all those weight classes.. It would be astounding if he had.

at pachilles saying pac beat better guys than ross. no pac opponent has the resume of mclarnin,canzoneri, or garcia. and i'm a big pac fan.

 

You are the single best poster on this website IMHO, but I do think you're very very harsh on current fighters as opposed to fighters from bygone eras. I have Ross well clear of Pacquiao as well, as you will see from my own first post in this thread, but the way you (very harshly) critically dissect the current fighter whilst doing nothing in a similar to the older-time fighter says to me that maybe you allow your judgements to be coloured by the fact that you dislike this era of boxing more than previous eras. Do you think this is fair to say, or am I way off here?

Two specific points from your post:

- Pacquiao's win over Barrera is just a flat-out superb win by contemporary standards. Look at MAB's run of form before and immediately after that fight.

- You say that a Pacquiao win over Mayweather only might mean he breaks into your top 50 ATGs. I just can't see how that is fair at all.


Please understand that I am only asking these questions and making these points so that you will explain things a little further, I have nothing but admiration for your knowledge and means of expression. :good

 

Flyweight, featherweight and under the scenario of beating floyd(which he'd have to do to enter into any reasonable discussion here) he also claims the welterweight title.

He never had lightweight but winning superfeather and lightwelter can equate to that.

That's amazing in any era.

 

Damn straight -especially about Barrera I. That win raised my eyebrow up over my pompadour.

 

Do you walk on your hands? Does your week begin with Saturday and go backwards? I'd like to stick you in a windowless room and force-feed you fight films and newspaper accounts (that were, since you don't know, written by ringside reporters who knew far more than the generalists who only dabble in boxing now and write brief sum-ups). Maybe after a few years, you'd get right side up.