Thread: How high would you rank Manny in ATG if he beats PBF?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFUQdY6Fx_M

As of this moment Bert Randolph Sugar and Brian Kenny of ESPN ranks Manny at least in the top 20 ATG. If Pacman beats Mayweather where would you put Manny in your ATG list?

Thanks.

Originally Posted by Pavlik

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFUQdY6Fx_M

As of this moment Bert Randolph Sugar and Brian Kenny of ESPN ranks Manny at least in the top 20 ATG. If Pacman beats Mayweather where would you put Manny in your ATG list?

Thanks.

Taking everything into consideration, probably about 6th for me... here are some of my pics - NOT IN ORDER (although top 5 is about right imo)

Sugar Ray Robinson
Henry Armstrong
Willie Pepp
Muhammad Ali
Roberto Duran
Jimmy Wilde
Benny Leonard
Pernell Whitaker
Sandy Saddler
Sugar Ray Leonard
Roy Jones Jnr
Sammy Langford
Ricardo Lopez
Charlie Burley
Marvin Hagler
Julio Cesar Chavez
Carlos Monzon
Harry Greb
Archie Moore
Gene Tunney
Aaron Pryor
Eder Jofre
Ezzard Charles
Alexis Arguello
Floyd Mayweather Junior
Billy Conn
Oscar DeLaHoya
Bernard Hopkins

Right now he's about Top 20, I have him & Mayweather about even, whoever wins gets comfortably in the Top 10. They're already the 2 best since Leonard retired, you could arguably have Pernell Whitaker ahead right now, but I can't see Jones ahead. But they'd have to beat the Mosley/Berto winner or Paul Williams to be the GOAT for me. Truthfully you can't properly assess a career till its over. Remember people used to think Leonard ducked top fights & cherry-picked, there were those who thought it ludicrous he be considered an ATG, yet now most people have him in the Top 10, some in the Top 5.

I dont see why there should be a bias for fighters from an older generation... IMO Manny Pacquiao is already better than the likes of Duran, Leonard, Whittaker etc... Is it so bad that i feel Floyd Mayweather is more accomplished than Hank Armstrong in every sense of the word?

The names I put up weren't in order, although I think the top 5 is just about right.

Originally Posted by Jimboogie

I dont see why there should be a bias for fighters from an older generation... IMO Manny Pacquiao is already better than the likes of Duran, Leonard, Whittaker etc... Is it so bad that i feel Floyd Mayweather is more accomplished than Hank Armstrong in every sense of the word?

It depends if you've seen said fighters in action. It also goes both ways. If you haven't seen many of them in action, then don't make a judgement. If you haven't seen Armstrong in action then it is wrong, however, if you have & simply feel Mayweather is better that is fair enough.

But, the simple fact is you do have to factor different things in. In the eras of SRR, Pep & Armstrong, they would be fighting top opponents every few weeks, which makes their performances all the more impressive. Now a top fighter gets in the ring every 6 months at best.

Also, I can't see Pacquiao as being better than Leonard or Duran yet & probably not Whitaker quite.

Originally Posted by JazMerkin

Originally Posted by Jimboogie

I dont see why there should be a bias for fighters from an older generation... IMO Manny Pacquiao is already better than the likes of Duran, Leonard, Whittaker etc... Is it so bad that i feel Floyd Mayweather is more accomplished than Hank Armstrong in every sense of the word?

It depends if you've seen said fighters in action. It also goes both ways. If you haven't seen many of them in action, then don't make a judgement. If you haven't seen Armstrong in action then it is wrong, however, if you have & simply feel Mayweather is better that is fair enough.

But, the simple fact is you do have to factor different things in. In the eras of SRR, Pep & Armstrong, they would be fighting top opponents every few weeks, which makes their performances all the more impressive. Now a top fighter gets in the ring every 6 months at best.

Also, I can't see Pacquiao as being better than Leonard or Duran yet & probably not Whitaker quite.

The thing that gets me is, as time goes on, styles evolve, tactics tighten and fighters become more athletic and so on... I don't look at Ray Robinson and think ''with today's training methods he'd be unbeatable...'' He was yesterdays fighter and i judge him as such. Hence achievement is the biggest thing these older fighters have going for them. (Hence why it's only the fighters with exceptional achievements who stand out).

Ray Robinson has more knockouts than most guys these days have had fights. But what of things like the 'tours of Europe' and b.s like that? How does that ''factor in'' to his tally?

I'm not knocking Robinson one bit but being old skool is not to be viewed through rose tinted glasses IMO. It's a two way street. There's a lot of old skool shit that went on back in the day that, if still incorporated in today's game, would make some current fighters God like icons (outside of the Philippines).

Another thing about Ray Robinson (Sorry!) was how far ahead of the game he was. Nobody could do the things he could do, brought the fight the way he did (or at least that was how it was viewed).

Thats no different now with both Floyd and Manny (Probably more so Manny; albiet ironically with his technical deficiencies).

NO ONE in the sport today, nor ever have been able to fight they way they do. And this is two guys who have beat the best and done it through numerous weight classes just the same... So how are they NOT ranked higher than those oldies?

I thought i'd rather not go quietly on this one

Originally Posted by Jimboogie

I dont see why there should be a bias for fighters from an older generation... IMO Manny Pacquiao is already better than the likes of Duran, Leonard, Whittaker etc... Is it so bad that i feel Floyd Mayweather is more accomplished than Hank Armstrong in every sense of the word?

I don't think he's really better than Pernell Whitaker, if Pernell Whitaker had not been robbed in his decision losses and draws coughs. He would be considered top 5 IMO, his only legit loss is too Felix Trinidad when he was way past his prime and having problems with drugs. Just take a look at this record for a second.

Azumah Nelson
Jose Luis Ramirez x2
Julio Cesar Chavez
Oscar De La Hoya
Greg Haugen
Wilfredo Rivera x2
Diosbelys Hurtado
Julio Cesar Vasquez
Buddy McGirt x2
Rafael Pineda
Freddie Pendleton
Anthony Jones
Policarpo Diaz
Jorge Paez

I think he won all of these fights, plus take into account his other achievements.

World titles.

Lightweight 10 title wins including the 1st Jose Luis Ramirez fight.
Jr Welterweight
Welterweight 10 title wins including Julio Cesar Chavez and ODLH.
Jr Middleweight

And for the record i think Pernell Whitaker, would of beaten Manny Pacquiao by atleast 8 rounds to 4.

Finally as for Roberto Duran his record speaks for itself.

Pac already top ten for me

If he beats PBF convincingly he hits the top 3 - if he destroys him then maybe just maybe........

Originally Posted by ICB

Originally Posted by Jimboogie

I dont see why there should be a bias for fighters from an older generation... IMO Manny Pacquiao is already better than the likes of Duran, Leonard, Whittaker etc... Is it so bad that i feel Floyd Mayweather is more accomplished than Hank Armstrong in every sense of the word?

I don't think he's really better than Pernell Whitaker, if Pernell Whitaker had not been robbed in his decision losses and draws coughs. He would be considered top 5 IMO, his only legit loss is too Felix Trinidad when he was way past his prime and having problems with drugs. Just take a look at this record for a second.

Azumah Nelson
Jose Luis Ramirez x2
Julio Cesar Chavez
Oscar De La Hoya
Greg Haugen
Wilfredo Rivera x2
Diosbelys Hurtado
Julio Cesar Vasquez
Buddy McGirt x2
Rafael Pineda
Freddie Pendleton
Anthony Jones
Policarpo Diaz
Jorge Paez

I think he won all of these fights, plus take into account his other achievements.

World titles.

Lightweight 10 title wins including the 1st Jose Luis Ramirez fight.
Jr Welterweight
Welterweight 10 title wins including Julio Cesar Chavez and ODLH.
Jr Middleweight

And for the record i think Pernell Whitaker, would of beaten Manny Pacquiao by atleast 8 rounds to 4.

Finally as for Roberto Duran his record speaks for itself.

It's hard to debate against that. There's a lot of facts there.

Except for the parts that are not fact of course.

No but seriously, i hear you. I dunno, i guess i picked on a bad bunch in Duran/ Whittaker/ Leonard (Although on a basis of head-to-head, i personally still think Manny AND Floyd would win 2 out of 3 of those fights).

And Henry Armstrong...? Yeah he was a great fighter, with a great engine and achieved a lot but again (for example) i just feel that both Floyd Mayweather and Manny Pacquiao are almost a league above him.

Originally Posted by ICB

Originally Posted by Jimboogie

I dont see why there should be a bias for fighters from an older generation... IMO Manny Pacquiao is already better than the likes of Duran, Leonard, Whittaker etc... Is it so bad that i feel Floyd Mayweather is more accomplished than Hank Armstrong in every sense of the word?

I don't think he's really better than Pernell Whitaker, if Pernell Whitaker had not been robbed in his decision losses and draws coughs. He would be considered top 5 IMO, his only legit loss is too Felix Trinidad when he was way past his prime and having problems with drugs. Just take a look at this record for a second.

Azumah Nelson
Jose Luis Ramirez x2
Julio Cesar Chavez
Oscar De La Hoya
Greg Haugen
Wilfredo Rivera x2
Diosbelys Hurtado
Julio Cesar Vasquez
Buddy McGirt x2
Rafael Pineda
Freddie Pendleton
Anthony Jones
Policarpo Diaz
Jorge Paez

I think he won all of these fights, plus take into account his other achievements.

World titles.

Lightweight 10 title wins including the 1st Jose Luis Ramirez fight.
Jr Welterweight
Welterweight 10 title wins including Julio Cesar Chavez and ODLH.
Jr Middleweight

And for the record i think Pernell Whitaker, would of beaten Manny Pacquiao by atleast 8 rounds to 4.

Finally as for Roberto Duran his record speaks for itself.

That list isnt impressive IMO. Pacquiao has faced better opposition. No chance Pernell would beat the Pacquiao right now prime for prime. Give me negative strikes all you want but i think when Manny Pacquiao's career is over, he will be around the world considered Top 3 of all time! (when his career is over).

How high would you rank Manny in ATG if he beats PBF?
I think we should not hurry up and wait until the final bell of this fight, if it will happen.

Pac at the moment is within top 7, to me way above Duran. Duran has a questionable heart (no mas, no mas) just a pure brawler doesnt have the beauty of in and out, lateral movement, etc. Pac is way better than Duran in style and resume. If he beats Mayweather he is absolutely within top 3. Pac is a combination of Duran and Leonard to me.

Floyd beating Manny doesnt make him at top 20. He should step up and fights better oppositions bigger than him like what Manny did all his career. at the moment he is fighting good smaller opponents bloating them up to his comfortable weights, eg. Hatton and JMM, far from being a great fighter.

If he passes that drug test and beats mayweather....very high. To quote Roger Mayweather, "if he pass that test, you already know what going to happen he fight my nephew."

I couldn't agree more with Roger on that one....

Originally Posted by JazMerkin

Right now he's about Top 20, I have him & Mayweather about even, whoever wins gets comfortably in the Top 10. They're already the 2 best since Leonard retired, you could arguably have Pernell Whitaker ahead right now, but I can't see Jones ahead. But they'd have to beat the Mosley/Berto winner or Paul Williams to be the GOAT for me. Truthfully you can't properly assess a career till its over. Remember people used to think Leonard ducked top fights & cherry-picked, there were those who thought it ludicrous he be considered an ATG, yet now most people have him in the Top 10, some in the Top 5.

HAHAHAHAHA that's fuckin crazy LOL