Originally Posted by
milmascaras1
there is no question pacquiao is at the top of his game now and he's been beating all the welterweights with big names. but unfortunately, that's all they are, big names. none of these welters aren't very good, or were good at one time (shane mosley) but obviously have gotten old and washed up.
i believe today's fighters pale in comparison to fighters of the eighties, nineties and early 2000's. i mean seriously, if a little guy like juan manuel marquez could take pacquiao see the devil twice, i would have wondered how pacquiao would have done with boxers from these two eras, 80's and 90's. and please, don't tell me pacquiao has improved from one fight, marquez to the david diaz fight. these two are totally different opponents.
i think pacquiao is very fortunate to have been fighting at a time when morales and marquez were old and out of their primes. another thing, if a very pedestrian antonio margarito can hurt pacquiao, how would pacquiao fare against a prime shane mosley, prime de la hoya, prime ike quartey etc...?
below is a list of fighters from the eighties and nineties who would/could have beaten pacquiao, starting from the lower weights. remember, all these fighters would be in their PRIME, with no catchweights or weight drains, something pacquiao is famous for:
super bantamweights - a prime wilfredo gomez destroys pacquiao in less than 5 rounds. nobody ever came close to dominating a division as easily as this great champion did.
featherweights - so pacquiao has trouble fighting counter punchers? he'd have a hell of a time surviving against salvador sanchez. sanchez had the height, length, skills to beat pacquiao by UD and maybe even TKO late.
azumah nelson - i don't care what anybody says but i think nelson would have destroyed a very clumsy pacquiao. nelson was a very underrated boxer and would have imposed his tremendous will and KO'd him.
naseem hamed - very good fight. pacquiao had him speed wise but hamed had him power wise. toss up fight with multiple knockdowns.
danny "little red" lopez - lopez had little defense but so does pacquiao. i would probably favor pacquiao by decision if he can survive lopez' power.
eusebio pedroza - another very underrated champion. made something like 16 title defenses and fought everyone and everything. a bit of a dirty fighter which would have seriously frustrated pacquiao (agapito sanchez). a very close fight to call.
super featherweight - alexis arguello would have been much too powerful for little pacquiao. in his prime, he was one of the very best all-time. would have taken some rounds to get pacquiao but he would catch up to him and KO him in the later rounds.
lightweights - i think edwin rosario beats pacquiao as well as ken buchanan. esteban de jesus was also a very underrated boxer who would have given pacquiao fits. ray mancini was one tough SOB and it would have been very interesting to see this fight.
jr. welters - i know aaron pryor, julio cesar chavez, meldrick taylor, hector camacho and pernell whitaker beat pacquiao. kostya tszyu would be a toss up. these fighters are no ricky hatton's of the world.
welters - remember, all prime fighters - oscar de la hoya, sugar ray leonard, thomas hearns, roberto duran, felix trinidad, donald curry, lloyd honeyghan, vernon forrest, pipino cuevas, ike quartey, wilfredo benitez and terry norris were all too strong and all of these guys hit very hard (except benitez). but it wouldn't matter if they were fighting in pacquiao's era because freddie roach would never let pacquiao fight these guys unless they were old and at catchweights.
pacquiao has never dominated any division in his life and the one he's come close to (welter) have been at catchweight with old, slow fighters. another thing, i believe the reason why pacquiao looks so fantastic fighting these old guys is because they are slow or old or at catchweights and they don't offer much of a resistance. when pacquiao fought marquez, you didn't see him go in there punching away because he knew marquez would counter him all night long. he had to think before he mixed it up with marquez unlike fighters like margarito, de la hoya, david diaz, washed up morales, limited hatton etc...
the fighters i mentioned from yesteryear would have all been too dangerous for pacquiao to fight, and i'll bet pacquiao wouldn't be going up in weight so fast with impunity the way he's doing now because the bigger names at welterweight are getting old and can't compare to the boxers of the eighties and nineties.
what pacquiao has done is very admirable because he's gone up in weight and beaten bigger guys, albeit, guys who weren't very good or old. but let's not get too carried away with these questionable accomplishments because they are questionable. as humans, we're enamored so much with the current. take mike tyson. i'll bet most of you fans thought tyson was the greatest heavyweight of all time when he was beating nobodies in the late 80's! i always knew he was lucky to have fought at a very weak division at the time and if he would have fought in the 70's, he wouldn't been just another good heavyweight contender.
and PSL, stop with this nonsense about what is the best way to beat pacquiao!!! quit feeding him old fighters and put him in with younger in their prime fighters and he'll answer your question. you make it sound as if pacquiao has this secret of fighting that can never be duplicated. his style is very complicated but with the right opponent, he can be beaten emphatically. sorry to burst your bubble because he's the only boxer you've known but it is what it is.
and i'm waiting for all the pactards on this forum to let me have it. i can just read your comments like "how dare milmascaras question pacquiao's greatness"? ban him, ban him.
