
Originally Posted by
TitoFan

Originally Posted by
powerpuncher
I don’t hold belts to any sort of relevance so it has no effect of someone’s status as an ATG. Although Pacquiao used excuses to get out of certain fights, he still fought a lot of great fighters. Even if he never fought for a belt, he would still be an ATG because of his competition and who he beat.
I haven’t checked but I’m assuming there are multiple old time fighters who are HOFers without ever winning a title because at that time there was only one belt per weight class and they just so happened to fight in an era with even greater fighters. My point being that belts may help your case, but overall they aren’t what makes you an ATG.
Not much to add here really. I personally rate Pac as an ATG not because of any belts but because 1) the competition he beat, and 2) the number of weight classes he was successful at. Belts, as we've seen painfully demonstrated in recent years, have lost some of their luster... and it's the orgs themselves who are to blame. To my knowledge Pac never blatantly ducked anybody (I could be wrong), which IMO is yet another factor.
It was pretty blatant when he pulled out of an agreed fight with Floyd and when Shane was still at the top of his game “we just fought at 147, then made the champion Cotto cut to 145, Shane can you make 145, of you can, well then what about 143, oh, you can, what about 140?”
But anyway, there are few that can be considered a great before Pacquiao. As powerpuncher said, it’s about who you fight.
Bookmarks