Who Ranks Higher: Michael Spinks or Manny Pacquiao

I've got a great explanation for my position, Pacquiao is greater than Michael Spinks.

 

head to head I have prime Spinks>prime Pacquiao

doesn't alter my stance on the thread at all

 

Well, I said I have them in the same bracket :yep

And doesn't McGrain have Floyd in his top twenty? :think If I'm wrong, I apologise profusely.

 

Says the man who loves Zarate and hates Arguello, pay him no heed.

 

already finding this thread thoroughly entertaining

even if marquez got the decision against pac, i'd still rate manny above spinks. not lights years ahead but a clear couple of spots

 

****, I don't know Addie, I would need to draw up a list first and that's probably never going to happen. I hate lists and think you can find something to embarrass just about anyone who has ever drawn one up (if you feel like being a ****, but still justifying yourself). I'm one of the fans that ranks wins on how I saw them, for example, Marquez has beaten Pacquiao more than once for me, Bernard Hopkins beat Joe Calzaghe etc etc. I can only speak for myself, and I'm not going to lie about what I saw on film to fit in.

So get this, I haven't seen all those fights of fighters in the past, so I'm going off paper, how do I know how to score the close decision between Moore and Charles?

Anyway, in general terms of what you're asking, all I can say is this, both men are bona fide greats. Mike Spinks is a candidate for the best fighter his division (his best weight) ever saw. Pacquiao doesn't fit that in any of the classic eight for me, I mention the classic eight because he has fought in enough of them in his prime for that to be a fair assessment, and the classic eight have more great fighters historically, and I rate Spinks as one of the very best to ever do it in one of those historically rich divisions.

Manny Pacquiao I rate as one of the very best to ever do it, for a certain type of opponent, and definitely not for another type of opponent. That makes me uncomfortable when calling him one of the utmost highest rated on ability fighters of all time.

On resumes and on legacy, Pacquiao takes it. Let's be objective here, and let us always remain consistent. I see people talking about how Jimmy McLarnin came throuygh mad divisions from flyweight. You, I, and Barry Manilow know that he wasn't a natural flyweight who was beating welterweights, but he still gets all this praise for that, so let me be consistent. Manny Pacquiao came from flyweight, and has moved up through divisions in a great fashion which edges out Michael Spinks being a dominant champion and one of the best fighters of all time in his division and then moving up to beat a slightly past prime legend for the heavyweight title.

Spinks is better than him though, it's so ****ing obvious to me, Spinks dominated a fine division, plus, watch the film and it's not difficult to see.

 

Teeto, good post. Pacman is 'greater' but doesn't match up too well H2H in any of the divisions bar favourable stylistic matches.

There is no one I'd make an outright favourite over Spinks @ 175.

 

short but effective point. thinking of it, you're bang on and even at pac's best weight (s) there are many fighters i'd favour over him

spinks however would be at worst a minor underdog against charles, etc.