Does Pacquiao or any Champ rate ATG status if they never held 2 belts at same time?

[TitoFan]

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.

Yeah well, I'm not going to pretend I know different about his "ducking" of Floyd, Shane, and making Cotto fight at a catchweight.

I just base my opinion on exactly what everyone's saying... quality of opposition. Also the fact that he traveled through so many weight divisions is pretty remarkable also. Critics claim PED use. To my knowledge he was never convicted of that.

This is a guy who started his pro career at light flyweight, and has over the years moved all the way up to welter.

Not only that, but as he has moved up, he's faced some of the biggest names in boxing.

It's a matter of opinion whether he's an ATG or not.... but in answer to the OP, it's my own personal opinion that he has checked all the boxes.

[Ron Swanson]

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.

Yeah well, I'm not going to pretend I know different about his "ducking" of Floyd, Shane, and making Cotto fight at a catchweight.

I just base my opinion on exactly what everyone's saying... quality of opposition. Also the fact that he traveled through so many weight divisions is pretty remarkable also. Critics claim PED use. To my knowledge he was never convicted of that.

This is a guy who started his pro career at light flyweight, and has over the years moved all the way up to welter.

Not only that, but as he has moved up, he's faced some of the biggest names in boxing.

It's a matter of opinion whether he's an ATG or not.... but in answer to the OP, it's my own personal opinion that he has checked all the boxes.

The standard of unifying is so specific. Generally the more specific you get the less you see the big picture. What if you fought and beat 2 prime HOFers but you never won a title and another guy fought and beat 2 paper champions. Are we going to argue the guy that beat a couple paper champions did more? That’s why I always end up with “who did you fight?” In the end I don’t care why you didn’t fight X or Y, I only care that you did fight Z. And that fight with Z is what you are to me. Win or lose, did you show skill, did you show heart, did you make adjustments throughout the fight, how was your stamina. On and on, only on what you did though.

If someone has a standard where PAC isn’t great then I feel comfortable saying the standard is flawed.

[TIC]

the quality of opponents is what matters, take usyk, his oppponents were very highly considered and he did it on the road, when crawford did it, not so much

[Fenster]

Pac was an all-time great long before he got to Oscar and Floyd and Cotto and Shane and Margarito. All those fights did was cement him as monumental all-time great to sit alongside Robinson and Duran and Injun Chi.

He went 5-1-1 with three ATG's - Morales, Barrera and Marquez. He pulled the shock upset against Ledwaba, long before his breakout upset over Barrera. Sasakul, Hussein, Sanchez, Julio, Lucero.

Pac's career didn't start at welterweight.

[Mark TKO]

I stopped following who held the belts and what version a long time ago. I knew who the near fighters were and that's all that mattered for me.

Pac is an ATG

[SlimTrae]

BUMP.
I was looking for Ring magazine quotes, but saw this...and decided to re-ask the question.

How can a person who NEVER UNIFIED a single division be called great? Has anyone done this other than Pac?

How can we say something like...Well he beat X amount of HOFers- as an argument, but not the status of the HOFer when they met? Were they on the downside? I know Morales never won a major fight after his trilogies with MAB, then Pac, yet we give Pac the nod for that?


No one took on that argument, instead it was deflected with what ifs.

Sometime we say- Why hasn't so & so defended his belt, until it came to the sake of Pac will then say- well belts dont matter.

Why then did we celebrate him winning 1 belt in 8 divisions as a means to rate him?

But when rating him based on how many of those trinkets per weight class...well then it becomes a bunch of trinkets.


Again, who...WHO in YOUR P4P list, Your ATG list, Your GOAT list has only won (1) belt in a division?
Who are they (OUTSIDE) of Pac?

That's the question.

[TitoFan]

That's a good question, Slim... and I'll at least tell you what I think, since ATG is kind of a subjective subject.

Beyond belts, I look at the willingness of the fighter to fight anyone, regardless of the danger, or upset factor. Consolidating a division is great and all that... but it must be looked at in the context of who are the division champions at that time. We all know there have always been weak champions (or more accurately... belt holders) in different divisions at any one time. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to identify who those are. To me, a true ATG looks beyond (or brushes aside) the danger factor of an opponent, whether it's in the process of unifying a division, or whether it's jumping to another division.

You mention Pac. As Pac was going up, he faced the Cottos... the Margaritos... the Mayweathers... the Thurmans. No fear about maybe losing an "0" (it wasn't there to lose anyway). Nothing other than "let's get this fight made." I know you know what I'm getting at in a roundabout way. I don't like waiting on fights till they become easy or convenient for whatever the reason. I don't like "marinating"... I don't like picking up the weak zebras from the herd. When this type of shit happens, I couldn't care less about consolidating divisions, because it's done in a calculated, careful way.

ATG's don't care about "calculated and careful." All they care about is facing the next guy on the list, regardless of how dangerous he is.

People put too much emphasis on secondary factors, such as how many weight divisions a guy travels through... or about consolidating divisions, especially given the weak champion factor I mentioned. I care more about the best fighting the best AT ANY TIME OR PLACE. No diva demands... no catchweights... no rehydration clauses. Someone who just puts it all out there on the line is more deserving of being called an ATG, IMHO... than someone with a carefully crafted record built around marinating and cherry-picking.

To at least partly answer your question, Pac is most definitely in my list of ATGs. What he did in his career is nothing short of amazing.

[generalbulldog]

Sven Ottke is an all time great and better than Pac since he held two alphabet soup titles according by the OP's criteria, the IBF and WBA and defended it 21 times.

Sven Ottke > Pacquiao. As Fenster would say, "fact!"