Just another way of looking at it.

in 2008 Manny Pacquiao fought as a Welterweight and at the end of that year he was Ranked by RING Magazine at #5. here's the complete Rankings

1. Antonio Margarito
2. Miguel Angel Cotto
3. Shane Mosley
4. Joshua Clottey
5. Manny Pacquiao
6. Carlos Quintana
7. Zab Judah
8. Luis Collazo
9. Andre Berto
10. Isaac Hlatshwayo

The Ring Magazine's Annual Ratings: Welterweight--2000s - Boxrec Boxing Encyclopaedia

Since that time :

Cotto and Clottey(Before 2008 ) lost to Margarito
Margarito lost to Shane Mosley
Shane Mosley lost to Miguel Cotto


* Would it be great if these 4 fighters didnt lose prior to facing Pacquiao? Well its not possible....They fought each other and somebody will lose or even get KTFO.

so since the money fight againts Hatton Pac has beaten all the TOP 4 Welterweights since he entered the division and he arguably did not lose a single round in doing it.


Just to illustrate that Fighters doesn't become bums when/if they lose.

1. Duran was KTFO by Thomas Hearns but came back and win a Middleweight belt againts Barkley

2. Hearns was KTFO by Hagler but came back and won multiple titles

3. Leonard lost to Duran but came back and won multiple championships

4. Barrera, Morales and Marquez were beaten before but came back and win championships

5. Evander was beaten by Moorer and KTFO by Bowe. Came back and KTFO Tyson :o

6. Hopkins lost to Jones came back and be #1 P4P

7. Pac got kayoed twice and became #1 P4P

8. Ali lost to Frazier came back

9. Foreman lost came back

10. etc etc etc

he is impressive, whats the point of the thread tho?

another way of looking at what?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by erics44

he is impressive, whats the point of the thread tho?

another way of looking at what?

---

Miguel Cotto - Not the fighter he used to be. Damaged after the KO loss to Margarito

Joshua Clottey - Coming off a loss. Tailor made for Pacquiao

Antonio Margarito - Wasnt the same after the brutal loss to Mosley

Shane Mosley - Shot after the loss to Floyd and Draw with Mora.


----

It became a standard that these are in fact true. even here it became as a fact that Pac has cherry picked opponents even if they themselves pick the opponent to win citing that they are not fortune tellers or something. You dont think the last 4 names were cherry picked fighters?

no mate

they were and probably still are the best in the division

who else was around for him to fight?

There is no denying that each of those fighters looked less than spectacular prior to fighting Manny Pac. They have all been top fighters at some stage in their careers, but when Manny faced them they were either of coming in off of recent KO's or a poor performance or string of performances.

You can look at it another way and say that some fighters come back well after a heavy stoppage or get better in their 40's, but those are exceptions to the rule rather than the norm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miles

There is no denying that each of those fighters looked less than spectacular prior to fighting Manny Pac. They have all been top fighters at some stage in their careers, but when Manny faced them they were either of coming in off of recent KO's or a poor performance or string of performances.

You can look at it another way and say that some fighters come back well after a heavy stoppage or get better in their 40's, but those are exceptions to the rule rather than the norm.

---

But they are the TOP guys. surely #2 will fight #3 but does the loser of that bout become less attractive than an unranked fighter?

Just an example : Mitchell wasnt even ranked when Floyd fought him and Baldomir was #10 before the Judah upset.


Evander looks shot to pieces prior to facing Tyson and what happened?

The point is you cant automatically assumed that a fighter is lesser now because he had lost. Cotto has lost one prior to facing Pac and at age 28 he was not the same?

and despite winning another title in a higher weight Cotto still looked less spectacular before the loss to Margarito?

Miles should stop discrediting Pacquiao. :D

who should have have fought in his last 4 fights?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by erics44

who should have have fought in his last 4 fights?

---

He fought the TOP 4 Fighters when he first entered the division.


maybe he should have fought #6 to # 9 ??

1. Carlos Quintana
2. Zab Judah
3. Luis Collazo
4. Andre Berto

To me that is less impressive :-\

I'm lost :confused:

me too

im not even sure if this is a pro pac or an anti pac thread anymore

?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by erics44

me too

im not even sure if this is a pro pac or an anti pac thread anymore

?

---

Exactly why I am lost :-\

Just helping out here... LOL!

What is the point?

The point is.... miron lang is providing proof that the assumptions that Pacquiao is cherry picking opponents by "established" Pac haters like Miles and company, here at Saddo, is not accurate, or yet, completely false.

The proof presented is that of a list widely accepted that reflects the high rankings of Pac's last few opponents at a weight within the same grouping to that of Pacquiao.

Add to that the timeline of 2008... then bingo! Without BIAS in one's system, independently, one can conclude or at least the fact will be acceptable, that the string of Pacquiao's opponents since 2008, considering availability and or physical probability, are not only worthy, but topnotch!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KananKrus

Just helping out here... LOL!

What is the point?

The point is.... miron lang is providing proof that the assumptions that Pacquiao is cherry picking opponents by "established" Pac haters like Miles and company, here at Saddo, is not accurate, or yet, completely false.

The proof presented is that of a list widely accepted that reflects the high rankings of Pac's last few opponents at a weight within the same grouping to that of Pacquiao.

Add to that the timeline of 2008... then bingo! Without BIAS in one's system, independently, one can conclude or at least the fact will be acceptable, that the string of Pacquiao's opponents since 2008, considering availability and or physical probability, are not only worthy, but topnotch!

---

does everyone still love pacman then?

Miron is making a decent point that was also brought about on FNF this past week by Joe Tessitore. Teddy Atlas was critiquing Pacquiao's opponents, but when Joe Tessitore asked Teddy Atlas who Pacquiao had ducked or who he should have been fighting and wasn't, Teddy didn't have an answer, and admitted that the Pacquiao's perceived lack of great competition wasn't Pacquiao's fault.

Very nice post.

The one thing the folks who hammer Manny never answer very well is "Well who should he have fought?"

TO be honest, that just remains to be seen, if anyone of the guys pacqiou has fought can comeback and do something great, then yes it adds to his credibility, but to allthose who don't understand, our friend here is saying that the guys packman beat aren't necessarily washed up

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Boxer4life

TO be honest, that just remains to be seen, if anyone of the guys pacqiou has fought can comeback and do something great, then yes it adds to his credibility, but to allthose who don't understand, our friend here is saying that the guys packman beat aren't necessarily washed up

---

This post identifies perfectly why it really is impossible to form an accurate picture of a fighter's career until not only he has retired, but the men he fought have also retired.

I mean who'd have thought the Jones win over BHOP would be so critical to his resume when it happened in 1993 (?) ? Who knew BHOP would go on to be BHOP? Same with Sanchez's win over Azumah. That win has grown dramatically in importance. Lennox over Vitali looks like another doesn't it?

It works the other way too. At the time Floyd's win over Chico looked huge. Now? Not so much. Chico turned out to be a good fighter, not a great one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Boxer4life

TO be honest, that just remains to be seen, if anyone of the guys pacqiou has fought can comeback and do something great, then yes it adds to his credibility, but to allthose who don't understand, our friend here is saying that the guys packman beat aren't necessarily washed up

---

This post identifies perfectly why it really is impossible to form an accurate picture of a fighter's career until not only he has retired, but the men he fought have also retired.

I mean who'd have thought the Jones win over BHOP would be so critical to his resume when it happened in 1993 (?) ? Who knew BHOP would go on to be BHOP? Same with Sanchez's win over Azumah. That win has grown dramatically in importance. Lennox over Vitali looks like another doesn't it?

It works the other way too. At the time Floyd's win over Chico looked huge. Now? Not so much. Chico turned out to be a good fighter, not a great one.

---

Good point with b hop, and i agree on chico, but i still think floyds wins over him and castillo carry some weight because he did fight them when they were a bug deal, unfortunately they failed to deliver after that fights, like most guys floyd fights

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Boxer4life

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Boxer4life

TO be honest, that just remains to be seen, if anyone of the guys pacqiou has fought can comeback and do something great, then yes it adds to his credibility, but to allthose who don't understand, our friend here is saying that the guys packman beat aren't necessarily washed up

---

This post identifies perfectly why it really is impossible to form an accurate picture of a fighter's career until not only he has retired, but the men he fought have also retired.

I mean who'd have thought the Jones win over BHOP would be so critical to his resume when it happened in 1993 (?) ? Who knew BHOP would go on to be BHOP? Same with Sanchez's win over Azumah. That win has grown dramatically in importance. Lennox over Vitali looks like another doesn't it?

It works the other way too. At the time Floyd's win over Chico looked huge. Now? Not so much. Chico turned out to be a good fighter, not a great one.

---

Good point with b hop, and i agree on chico, but i still think floyds wins over him and castillo carry some weight because he did fight them when they were a bug deal, unfortunately they failed to deliver after that fights, like most guys floyd fights

---

I agree the Chico win carries some weight. It just doesn't carry the weight I thought it did at the time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Boxer4life

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Boxer4life

TO be honest, that just remains to be seen, if anyone of the guys pacqiou has fought can comeback and do something great, then yes it adds to his credibility, but to allthose who don't understand, our friend here is saying that the guys packman beat aren't necessarily washed up

---

This post identifies perfectly why it really is impossible to form an accurate picture of a fighter's career until not only he has retired, but the men he fought have also retired.

I mean who'd have thought the Jones win over BHOP would be so critical to his resume when it happened in 1993 (?) ? Who knew BHOP would go on to be BHOP? Same with Sanchez's win over Azumah. That win has grown dramatically in importance. Lennox over Vitali looks like another doesn't it?

It works the other way too. At the time Floyd's win over Chico looked huge. Now? Not so much. Chico turned out to be a good fighter, not a great one.

---

Good point with b hop, and i agree on chico, but i still think floyds wins over him and castillo carry some weight because he did fight them when they were a bug deal, unfortunately they failed to deliver after that fights, like most guys floyd fights

---

I agree the Chico win carries some weight. It just doesn't carry the weight I thought it did at the time.

---

agreed, which goes back to what u said, you cant judge a fighters career until he and everyone he fought is ll wrapped up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Boxer4life

TO be honest, that just remains to be seen, if anyone of the guys pacqiou has fought can comeback and do something great, then yes it adds to his credibility, but to allthose who don't understand, our friend here is saying that the guys packman beat aren't necessarily washed up

---

Bro:

Miguel Cotto right now:
Boxing Ratings | RingTV

Boxing Ratings | RingTV

Heck Even a shot Erik Morales:
Boxing Ratings | RingTV

if my memory serves me right Barrera and Larios after getting beat by PAC still won a major title.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rantcatrat

Miron is making a decent point that was also brought about on FNF this past week by Joe Tessitore. Teddy Atlas was critiquing Pacquiao's opponents, but when Joe Tessitore asked Teddy Atlas who Pacquiao had ducked or who he should have been fighting and wasn't, Teddy didn't have an answer, and admitted that the Pacquiao's perceived lack of great competition wasn't Pacquiao's fault.

---

Yup I saw that too at FNF, and presented Bradley as the best choice. Fighting Bradley would be the less risk fight because he is not that big of a man to begin with and does not carry a big punch or a great defense. If PAC does fight him in the future and probably stop him I still believe Atlas would still have something bad to say about Manny, maybe something about the steroid issue. Can't please them all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pavlik

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rantcatrat

Miron is making a decent point that was also brought about on FNF this past week by Joe Tessitore. Teddy Atlas was critiquing Pacquiao's opponents, but when Joe Tessitore asked Teddy Atlas who Pacquiao had ducked or who he should have been fighting and wasn't, Teddy didn't have an answer, and admitted that the Pacquiao's perceived lack of great competition wasn't Pacquiao's fault.

---

Yup I saw that too at FNF, and presented Bradley as the best choice. Fighting Bradley would be the less risk fight because he is not that big of a man to begin with and does not carry a big punch or a great defense. If PAC does fight him in the future and probably stop him I still believe Atlas would still have something bad to say about Manny, maybe something about the steroid issue. Can't please them all.

---

I disagree. I believe Bradley is the best choice for Manny right now, barring maybe JMM. Unlike JMM, Bradley is proven at 140 and 147. In addition, you can be sure Bradley will go out on his shield. Bradley is also the top dog at 140. JMM isn't even the top dog at 135. JMM also isn't proven above 135 and the fact that he chooses to fight Diaz at 135 rather than step up and fight someone ranked at 140 makes me wonder whether JMM himself even believes he can be effective above 135, and maybe, like Mosley, he is taking the Pacquiao fight because he wants the cash, not because he can win.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rantcatrat

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pavlik

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rantcatrat

Miron is making a decent point that was also brought about on FNF this past week by Joe Tessitore. Teddy Atlas was critiquing Pacquiao's opponents, but when Joe Tessitore asked Teddy Atlas who Pacquiao had ducked or who he should have been fighting and wasn't, Teddy didn't have an answer, and admitted that the Pacquiao's perceived lack of great competition wasn't Pacquiao's fault.

---

Yup I saw that too at FNF, and presented Bradley as the best choice. Fighting Bradley would be the less risk fight because he is not that big of a man to begin with and does not carry a big punch or a great defense. If PAC does fight him in the future and probably stop him I still believe Atlas would still have something bad to say about Manny, maybe something about the steroid issue. Can't please them all.

---

I disagree. I believe Bradley is the best choice for Manny right now, barring maybe JMM. Unlike JMM, Bradley is proven at 140 and 147. In addition, you can be sure Bradley will go out on his shield. Bradley is also the top dog at 140. JMM isn't even the top dog at 135. JMM also isn't proven above 135 and the fact that he chooses to fight Diaz at 135 rather than step up and fight someone ranked at 140 makes me wonder whether JMM himself even believes he can be effective above 135, and maybe, like Mosley, he is taking the Pacquiao fight because he wants the cash, not because he can win.

---

im not degrading bradley in any way but to say he is better than Cotto:-\

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miron_lang

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miles

There is no denying that each of those fighters looked less than spectacular prior to fighting Manny Pac. They have all been top fighters at some stage in their careers, but when Manny faced them they were either of coming in off of recent KO's or a poor performance or string of performances.

You can look at it another way and say that some fighters come back well after a heavy stoppage or get better in their 40's, but those are exceptions to the rule rather than the norm.

---

But they are the TOP guys. surely #2 will fight #3 but does the loser of that bout become less attractive than an unranked fighter?

Just an example : Mitchell wasnt even ranked when Floyd fought him and Baldomir was #10 before the Judah upset.


Evander looks shot to pieces prior to facing Tyson and what happened?

The point is you cant automatically assumed that a fighter is lesser now because he had lost. Cotto has lost one prior to facing Pac and at age 28 he was not the same?

and despite winning another title in a higher weight Cotto still looked less spectacular before the loss to Margarito?

Miles should stop discrediting Pacquiao. :D

---

All fighters are different. Not all will be lesser after a loss but some just lose "it." Was Cotto the same after Margo fight? NO.... And what title in a higher weight did Cotto win before the Margo fight? What weight is this you speak of? He was fighting 147 for 2yrs when he fought Margo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rantcatrat

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pavlik

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rantcatrat

Miron is making a decent point that was also brought about on FNF this past week by Joe Tessitore. Teddy Atlas was critiquing Pacquiao's opponents, but when Joe Tessitore asked Teddy Atlas who Pacquiao had ducked or who he should have been fighting and wasn't, Teddy didn't have an answer, and admitted that the Pacquiao's perceived lack of great competition wasn't Pacquiao's fault.

---

Yup I saw that too at FNF, and presented Bradley as the best choice. Fighting Bradley would be the less risk fight because he is not that big of a man to begin with and does not carry a big punch or a great defense. If PAC does fight him in the future and probably stop him I still believe Atlas would still have something bad to say about Manny, maybe something about the steroid issue. Can't please them all.

---

I disagree. I believe Bradley is the best choice for Manny right now, barring maybe JMM. Unlike JMM, Bradley is proven at 140 and 147. In addition, you can be sure Bradley will go out on his shield. Bradley is also the top dog at 140. JMM isn't even the top dog at 135. JMM also isn't proven above 135 and the fact that he chooses to fight Diaz at 135 rather than step up and fight someone ranked at 140 makes me wonder whether JMM himself even believes he can be effective above 135, and maybe, like Mosley, he is taking the Pacquiao fight because he wants the cash, not because he can win.

---

While I really disagree Bradley is in any way "proven" at 147, I guess he's a legit choice among a series of pretty lousy options for Manny at this point.

Manny's best legacy option is to find a way to get to 135 and fight JMM there. Seems unlikely. Next I guess would be a suicide mission to fight Sergio Martinez and separate himself, if he were to win, from every other man who ever fought. Lineal at 112, 126, 130, 140 and 160? Crazy. Third choice I guess Bradley at 140, then Bradley at 147.

How about Kermit Cintron?

Cintron makes sense. Why? Cintron says he can make 147 if the money is right (which it undoubtedly would be). If not, just make it . a 150 pound catchweight. More importantly, Cintron is promoted by Top Rank!! The Bobfather would get to keep it in house.

Dropping to 140 makes sense. Pac is weighing less in the ring than alot of the guys who make 140. Take on Bradley and anyone else there willing to fight him.

The opponents Pac fought have all been very good in their time, but by fighting them when he did, he invited himself in for criticism. I actually agree with Teddy Atlas. There is a complete lack of young, hungry undefeated fighters on Pac's resume. Even at the lower weights, you have wins over the likes of Barrera and Morales who had been in plenty of wars themselves. Those are still Pacs most important wins IMO.

People might scoff at the suggestion of Bradley, but it is point well made that unlike Marquez who is unproven beyond 135, Bradley is the top dog at 140, is undefeated and will come to outhustle Manny. It would be nice to see someone with output, desire and some handspeed of his own to see Manny have to deal with.

I maintain that Manny is smoke and mirrors. Why not rematch Marquez earlier at 135? Because they knew he was too dangerous and went looking for lumbering come forward types. It's only 3 years later that the fight is made and Marquez is fighting 10 pounds north of any weight he has looked good at. If Manny blows him out, then whoopy doo. More smoke and mirrors. Then what? A rematch with Cotto who has been lumbering about pretending he is a 154 pounder? Or will it be Berto. :-\

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miles

The opponents Pac fought have all been very good in their time, but by fighting them when he did,

---

Miles look at the timeline.

When Pac arrived at Welter those were the ranking and these were the TOP 4 guys. The money fight againts Hatton is a must you even have Hatton winning that one. after that

he proceeded in this manner Cotto, Clottey, Margarito, Mosley. he did not fight a Jr Welter at Welterweight. he take on the list when he arrived. The heck if they lost along the way it happens cause they fight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miron_lang

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miles

The opponents Pac fought have all been very good in their time, but by fighting them when he did,

---

Miles look at the timeline.

When Pac arrived at Welter those were the ranking and these were the TOP 4 guys. The money fight againts Hatton is a must you even have Hatton winning that one. after that

he proceeded in this manner Cotto, Clottey, Margarito, Mosley. he did not fight a Jr Welter at Welterweight. he take on the list when he arrived. The heck if they lost along the way it happens cause they fight.

---

hopefully bradley is still undefeated when pac faces him, we'll see what they'll say then.;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Boxer4life

TO be honest, that just remains to be seen, if anyone of the guys pacqiou has fought can comeback and do something great, then yes it adds to his credibility, but to allthose who don't understand, our friend here is saying that the guys packman beat aren't necessarily washed up

---

This post identifies perfectly why it really is impossible to form an accurate picture of a fighter's career until not only he has retired, but the men he fought have also retired.

I mean who'd have thought the Jones win over BHOP would be so critical to his resume when it happened in 1993 (?) ? Who knew BHOP would go on to be BHOP? Same with Sanchez's win over Azumah. That win has grown dramatically in importance. Lennox over Vitali looks like another doesn't it?

It works the other way too. At the time Floyd's win over Chico looked huge. Now? Not so much. Chico turned out to be a good fighter, not a great one.

---

Roy didn't hand B-Hop a life altering beat down my friend.



And in 29 days you have 618 or so posts. I'm curious....that's over 21 posts each day. For 29 days in a row. Are you part owner of this site? Or maybe you don't work? Or you are one of those trick Pac accounts to build more Pac lovers on the forum. But you disguise i with other general boxing posts....hmm....you've seem to be quite the Pac lover as of late. Seemed neautral in the beginning.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mafiajoey

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Boxer4life

TO be honest, that just remains to be seen, if anyone of the guys pacqiou has fought can comeback and do something great, then yes it adds to his credibility, but to allthose who don't understand, our friend here is saying that the guys packman beat aren't necessarily washed up

---

This post identifies perfectly why it really is impossible to form an accurate picture of a fighter's career until not only he has retired, but the men he fought have also retired.

I mean who'd have thought the Jones win over BHOP would be so critical to his resume when it happened in 1993 (?) ? Who knew BHOP would go on to be BHOP? Same with Sanchez's win over Azumah. That win has grown dramatically in importance. Lennox over Vitali looks like another doesn't it?

It works the other way too. At the time Floyd's win over Chico looked huge. Now? Not so much. Chico turned out to be a good fighter, not a great one.

---

Roy didn't hand B-Hop a life altering beat down my friend.



And in 29 days you have 618 or so posts. I'm curious....that's over 21 posts each day. For 29 days in a row. Are you part owner of this site? Or maybe you don't work? Or you are one of those trick Pac accounts to build more Pac lovers on the forum. But you disguise i with other general boxing posts....hmm....you've seem to be quite the Pac lover as of late. Seemed neautral in the beginning.

---

I'm retired and have been for a decade. I have no spcial love for Manny. For any fighter these days. I think my days as a fan of fighters ended with Finito Lopez.

But I despise people who act irresponsibly and make allegations without any foundation whatsoever. And I mean despise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mafiajoey

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marbleheadmaui

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Boxer4life

TO be honest, that just remains to be seen, if anyone of the guys pacqiou has fought can comeback and do something great, then yes it adds to his credibility, but to allthose who don't understand, our friend here is saying that the guys packman beat aren't necessarily washed up

---

This post identifies perfectly why it really is impossible to form an accurate picture of a fighter's career until not only he has retired, but the men he fought have also retired.

I mean who'd have thought the Jones win over BHOP would be so critical to his resume when it happened in 1993 (?) ? Who knew BHOP would go on to be BHOP? Same with Sanchez's win over Azumah. That win has grown dramatically in importance. Lennox over Vitali looks like another doesn't it?

It works the other way too. At the time Floyd's win over Chico looked huge. Now? Not so much. Chico turned out to be a good fighter, not a great one.

---

Roy didn't hand B-Hop a life altering beat down my friend.



And in 29 days you have 618 or so posts. I'm curious....that's over 21 posts each day. For 29 days in a row. Are you part owner of this site? Or maybe you don't work? Or you are one of those trick Pac accounts to build more Pac lovers on the forum. But you disguise i with other general boxing posts....hmm....you've seem to be quite the Pac lover as of late. Seemed neautral in the beginning.

---

I'm retired and have been for a decade. I have no spcial love for Manny. For any fighter these days. I think my days as a fan of fighters ended with Finito Lopez.

But I despise people who act irresponsibly and make allegations without any foundation whatsoever. And I mean despise.

---

I respect that.....you def know things about boxing I've only heard old timers speak of suck as my dad. Thanks