Judging from this list, which is not mine of course, Pac would slot in right around #15-16 and Mayweather somewhere like #47-48. btw WTF is Tommy Hearns doing so low? Really weird.
This list, even though it was done by The Ring, is so hideously ******ed that you can't just place people into it. Aaron Pryor at #35? Unacceptable.
I'm a Hopkins fan, and I can't see any justification for ranking Hopkins really close to Pac in an ATG sense. Pac should definitely be higher by a clear margin.
no. it really depends on the number of boxers who deserve to be ranked ahead of floyd and hopkins but who also don't deserve to be ranked ahead of pac.
Me too. I don't for the life of me know why he's ranked so high. I think a lot of fighters in the higher ATG ranks are there because they were around in weak eras, Floyd's one of them.
not that its a list i agree with, i think Roy will be higher when its all said and done, as will Hopkins, and perhaps Trinidad and Whitaker as well. I think with fighters we tend to remember them as we saw them last- and these guys are all on the steep decline. If someone was to rank Sugar Ray Leonard when he was close to retirement- they might have had him in the 50's due to his bad losses- it was only 5-10 years later in hindsight that he got the props he deserved. I think this is starting to happen for Tyson and also Lewis and Evander (who is effectively dead- he just dosent know it yet) but if i had to fit them in that list- i d put Manny Pacquiao in behind Dempey and ahead of Hagler at 17- and Floyd at 28 behind Holmes. a loss or a win in the next two fights for either man will shift that though. assuming Floyd beats Shane- and the two fight - I think the winner will assume top 20 status. I think Pacs status as top 20 is fairly solid- although people will drop or raise him in the heat of the moment over the next year or so- when its all said and done- i think he ll be top 20. 30 , 40 years from now- I think both have a chance to even strike the top 10. theyre that good i think. we re pretty lucky to see them in our lifetimes- two top small men who couldve competed between 130-147 in any era and been a top fighter. in ANY era.
lets pretend for a second- life was like fight night- and all of the sports fighters were fighting at the same time- they were born in the same year- or rather- in different years- but reached their peaks in the same year 2010. If that were the case- I think floyd and pac would only just be in the top 10 lights-welters at the time. guys who are their peers such as whitaker, oscar , trinidad would all outrank them i think - possibly even tszyu ,and thats the past 10 years only. i d favour oscar to beat both prime for prime for example. so for ability i think theyre both just rounding out the top 10 in their own classes all time. then you consider resumes- the other factor when considering this kind of discussion, and its clear that floyds resume is a little underwhelming for his ability- so that drops him a bit, and then pacs- who is majorly overachieving which raises him a heck of a lot. so all in all- when you think about it in those terms- its fair to put pac in the top 20 and floyd in the top 50 somewhere. just.
Floyd top 35 and Pac top 30. Modern greats, but definitely not greatest of them all. They need to beat the best of their own era IN THEIR PRIMES to truly be tested with no doubts. Pretty much they need each other as both would be the most important fights in their careers.
technically Castillox2, but really Castillo X1 and possibly beats Castillo 1,000 times after that. But that night, Castillo-Mayweather I, Castillo SD12 Mayweather. Mayweather really is 39-1. Don't be fooled. We all know the truth unless your a floyderina.