Where does Manny Pacquiao Rank P4P?

Agreed.

Pacquiao KO1 Jess Willard.

 

Omg you don't know **** about boxing, I bet you think that Floyd Mayweather would beat Jimmy Wilde too, you're embarrassing. Swigging Whiskey before fights enhances your muscle tissue and makes your **** longer.

I'm just messing around with you. Thought that was clear from my first post!

 

I love this thread!

Anyway I'm off for a few hours.

 

WTF? atsch

Ah yes, I bet the above-mentioned PacMan would probably beat Armstrong. Let me guess... his workrate would overpower and overwhelm Hank while knocking him down multiple times and confusing him with his "Lateral Movement" and straight left hand?

Getting warm?

 

Almost...you forgot about Pac's "clitoris" gloves, often the difference between winning and losing.

 

He's within the top 200

 

I don't know why people disrespect the great Manny. I guess you have to be retired for 50 years until people give you their just due.

I don't care the era, Pac would fare very well. I just know understand how someone can say that a guy they never seen, a guy who smoked 2 packs a day and drank scotch before fights back in the 1820s when they threw 3 punches a round could best Manny. A buch a pasty white guys who didnt fight Blacks, Latinos or Asians.

Yeah, they might have been 'creditied' with 200 fights, but how many were against hobos? Yeah, Greb was 50-0 against the homeless. Whatever.

 

pacquiao is actually the only active fighter who can get to number one on the all-time pound for pound list. as i've said before, all he needs to do is beat mayweather, martinez, hopkins and last a few rounds with haye, and i'd say he's the greatest of all time.

 

b realisitc , the **** will not happen , no 1 is tht dumb atsch

 

I say he will KO Mayweather, and the only question is would he fight Martinez before retiring. He is slightly past his prime while Sergio is in his prime. But if Pac beats both of those guys, anyone who does not have him top 10 (and I would say top 5 is he beats Martinez) is crazy.

The only true reasons is nostalgia. Old Burt Sugar geezers not wanting to admit this generation can sometimes have better fighters.

 

So if Mayweather completely outboxes Pac to a wide UD or even KO/TKO, showing weaknesses in Pac that support claims that his recent accomplishments have been mainly because he has been fed come forward slower fighters you will be comfortable in saying Pac is the `greater` fighter ?

Nah, not for me... if Pac shows that he can hang with Floyd & loses quite close then yes, I can accept that... but surely it will depend on how the fight goes down as to were you rank them :think

 

:nut

 

Ive said it since day 1... well maybe not the **** thing but a Mayweather victory is my pick without doubt.

 

Yep, for me there's never been a doubt who the better fighter is, I think Mayweather would/will beat him comfortably. On the point of who would be greater if the fight goes down and Floyd wins, well I've got to be consistent and I don't usually give too much weight to the method of win when it comes to judging legacies and or greatness, that's more of a resume thing imo. The method of win is all about who is better by my criteria, and not who is greater. But i'm not saying my criteria is the right way to do things, it's all subjective and we all have our different ways of doing things.

Anyway, if Floyd beats Pac, then he'll have Manny Pacquiao on his resume so obviously that will be a big legacy booster, so it might be closer than people think. Add to that that people criminally **** on Mayweather's resume as if he has beaten nobody at all. People act like Jose Luis Castillo was a journeyman, it can get pathetic at times.

 

this is a very interesting distinction to draw. i think in terms of one-off wins, ignoring controversial decisions, your distinction has benefits. look at leonard hearns I - greatness right there. would it have been more impressive if he'd dominated the fight? not in terms of greatness, per se.

on the other hand, i think that the manner of victory becomes more important when you look at the career as a whole. for example, i think it's significant that certain fighters have emphatic title runs. the fact that duran and hagler knocked out all bar one (bar two for hagler) challenger(s) during their runs adds to their greatness, for me. also, holyfield's emphatic streak at cruiserweight falls into this category, even though it was short.