Who ranks higher on the all-time great list, Pacquiao or Holyfield?

@Unforgiven
I agree.

 

@bodhi
I agree. In my opinion you have to hold all 4 belts to be considered the proper champion of that weight class.

But because Ring magazine, IBHOF, WBHOF etc etc recognize belt holders as world champions, that is why I made those lists.

 

For me, it's Manny Pacquiao.

Evander Holyfield is a stone-cold top 50 ATG, perhaps even a top 40 or top 35. I rate him highly, I respect him highly, and I like him as a fighter. He was the greatest cruiserweight ever without question, and he was a truly great heavyweight in the early-mid 90s.

But I think in terms of achievements, Pacquiao has topped Evander now. Without going down a well-worn path, Pacquiao's weight-jumping feats are not just great, they are extremely rare and special.

When Floyd Mayweather was 21, he won his first world title at 130, and now he is at 147.

When Manny Pacquiao was 20, he won his first world title at 112, and now he is at 147.


Guys like Mayweather, De La Hoya and Jones Jr are genuinely great weight-jumpers, Pacquiao is a special one. That should be recognized by history.

 

Even for you, this is some pretty feeble-minded ****.

 

Holyfield's jump to HW is honestly more impressive, imo.

Pacquiao has never faced a disadvantage like Holyfield-Bowe or Holyfield-Lewis.

 

Whom Holyfield went 1-3-1 against (really 1-4 though).

 

Try what again?

Holyfield had a great career at heavyweight fighting mostly bigger men, and so have many other heavyweights, because the nature of the heavyweight division is that the two fighters are often different sizes.

Is every smaller heavyweight fighter (Holyfield, Frazier, Floyd Patterson) automatically going to be ranked higher than any fighter who didn't spend as great a portion of their careers fighting bigger men (like Pacquiao or Mayweather) and also automatically going to be ranked higher than any fighter who arguably didn't spend any portion of their career at all fighting bigger men (like Saddler, Monzon, Hagler)???


As I said earlier, it's a weak as **** argument, as are virtually every single one of yours in history.

 

Is being competitive in losing efforts really the primary feature of boxing greatness?