After defeating Morales and Barrera in the same fashion, Pacquiao had proven to be the best boxer in the featherweight division.
No doubt all will agree. If you don't give me reasons....... 8)
Printable View
After defeating Morales and Barrera in the same fashion, Pacquiao had proven to be the best boxer in the featherweight division.
No doubt all will agree. If you don't give me reasons....... 8)
He is the best at Featherweight no doubt
Remember he is the Featherweight Linear Champion
He has the Ring Belt to prove ;)
Quote:
Originally Posted by spade
Quote:
Originally Posted by Victor Navorski
Pacquaio and Morales are scheduled to meet again on the 18th November in Nevada apparently :P
i totally agree with you. he's the bestright now and will be for a while i hope
Lineage is a term that is used, when a fighter becomes the Undisputed Champion of a weight division, and a line is created as each Champion loses.Quote:
Originally Posted by Victor Navorski
In Paciquao's case his lineage started after the untimely death of Salvador Sanchez, that left Eusebio Perdroza as THE Featherweight Champion of the World.
Thus it went: Pedroza lost to McGuigan; who lost to Cruz; who lost to Esparagoza; who lost to Park; who lost to Rojas; who lost to Vazquez; who lost to Naseem; who lost to Barrera; who lost to Manny ;)
BK,but Manny lost to Erik the first time and he lost to Raheem who lost to Freitas right? Oh sorry,those fights were at other weights right? I like the RING but I don't swear by it like some of you guys. Like all organizations,I believe it has it's inadeqeucies
The likes of the WBC and WBO are only allegedly corrupt....Quote:
Originally Posted by El Phenomena
The Ring has been proven corrupt in the past, when it sold rating's to DKP ;)
BK,I want to pick your brains about Ring,why is it so highly liked? Is it as corrupt as the other organisations and what are it's flaws? CC for your opinion,I ask because I respect it!
I also respect The Ring. But you know, all organization has its flaws. O0 O0
The Ring is a strange beast. It's original editor Nat Fleischer ruled with an iron fist; he dictated all the ratings of the magazine, which were pretty much considered, THE World rankings.Quote:
Originally Posted by El Gamo
He undoubtedly had petty bias sometimes, most notably his hatred of Liston and Ali/Clay...
When Fleischer died (72 ish), The Ring got itself into a lot of trouble in the mid 70s, when it accepted payments from DKP, to buy rankings for the United States Boxing Championships. The US Boxing Championships was a tournament developed by Don King and ABC TV in which fighters ranked by The Ring met in a knockout tournament. The tournament ended in farce when ABC proved that The Ring was taking bribes off of DKP fighters to get rankings...
After this, The Ring tried to rebuild its tarnished image, by going back to ranking just the traditional 8 divisions. And was (braverly and rightly IMO) at the forefront of claiming Micheal Spinks as World Heavyweight Champion in the late 80s, when most everyone else considered Tyson Champ.
The Ring went bust in 92, but came back later in the year, and had ranking for all divisions but no Champion for each division.
Of course that policy was changed a few years back, but naive decisions like trying to proclaim Vatali as World Heavyweight Champ, still hurt the credibility of its rankings IMO.
Wo,thankyou for that,very informative!! CC!
nowadays a belt could only mean so much..but it has to be the quality of opponents and the quality of fights that matters..PAC has no belt but PAC rules the division, paid higher(much higher) and get the people's respect...IMO a belt is only for the papers and just to formalize things.