Where will you put Pac in the All-Time Greats?

[Pavlik]

Pacquiao entering realm of all-time great

Pacquiao chases history - Boxing - Yahoo! Sports

I like the part when Kevin Iole in the second article said that Manny is limited because of his height and small frame, imagine if he he was a bit bigger
For what PAC has accomplished, how he accomplished it and for his size it is indeed a FEAT.
At least top 20!!!

[Kev]

Pacquiao entering realm of all-time great

Pacquiao chases history - Boxing - Yahoo! Sports

I like the part when Kevin Iole in the second article said that Manny is limited because of his height and small frame, imagine if he he was a bit bigger
For what PAC has accomplished, how he accomplished it and for his size it is indeed a FEAT.
At least top 20!!!

Great articles Pavlik, I agree completely with the first one, for me Pacquaio's resume eclipses Holyfields, Hopkins, Chavez, Whitaker, Hagler maybe even Roy Jones.

This isn't a statement but a question. For those who always put Henry Armstrong at number 4 in the All Time rankings for holding 3 world titles at 3 weights at the same time.

Well in the modern era you arn't allowed to do that but Manny has in the space of 15 months won world titles in three weight classes and beaten 3 Hall of Fame fighters, two by knockout.

He's also come from flyweight to do it.

What did Armstrong do that was better? Was it the quality of his opponents? Are they all top 20 All time greats?

If you look at Armstrongs record, he lost 3 of his first 4, was KO'd in his first fight and had a record of 72-11-7 when he won his first world title.

I don't know any of the fighters he fought, how many of them are in the top 50 or even top 100 all time great list?


I truly think if Manny had done what he has done in the modern era 50 years or so ago he would be considered right now in the top 3 of all time as highly rated if not more so than Armstrong and Pep.

Before you disagree with me, please explain to me why I am wrong and specifically the opponents that Joe Luis, Henry Armstrong, Willie Pep, Jimmy Wilde, Benny Leonard etc beat and the records they held that makes their achievements greater than Mannys?

[brucelee]

Pacquiao entering realm of all-time great

Pacquiao chases history - Boxing - Yahoo! Sports

I like the part when Kevin Iole in the second article said that Manny is limited because of his height and small frame, imagine if he he was a bit bigger
For what PAC has accomplished, how he accomplished it and for his size it is indeed a FEAT.
At least top 20!!!

Great articles Pavlik, I agree completely with the first one, for me Pacquaio's resume eclipses Holyfields, Hopkins, Chavez, Whitaker, Hagler maybe even Roy Jones.

This isn't a statement but a question. For those who always put Henry Armstrong at number 4 in the All Time rankings for holding 3 world titles at 3 weights at the same time.

Well in the modern era you arn't allowed to do that but Manny has in the space of 15 months won world titles in three weight classes and beaten 3 Hall of Fame fighters, two by knockout.

He's also come from flyweight to do it.

What did Armstrong do that was better? Was it the quality of his opponents? Are they all top 20 All time greats?

If you look at Armstrongs record, he lost 3 of his first 4, was KO'd in his first fight and had a record of 72-11-7 when he won his first world title.

I don't know any of the fighters he fought, how many of them are in the top 50 or even top 100 all time great list?


I truly think if Manny had done what he has done in the modern era 50 years or so ago he would be considered right now in the top 3 of all time as highly rated if not more so than Armstrong and Pep.

Before you disagree with me, please explain to me why I am wrong and specifically the opponents that Joe Luis, Henry Armstrong, Willie Pep, Jimmy Wilde, Benny Leonard etc beat and the records they held that makes their achievements greater than Mannys?

Well said BILBO. No doubt you're one of the open minded posters here in Saddo. It's just great to have witnessed one of the boxing greats in my lifetime and to think I followed his career since he started boxing. Whew. I'll be proud to tell my grandchildren that I was here in Saddo talking about Pac and watching all his fights.


Keep on giving your opinions.

[Mr140]

Well i would with out a doubt rate Leonard over Pac for a few reasons. Mostly is because when he beat Benitez and Hearns they both were at the top and never lost and went on to do more after there defeats. Barrea and Eric i rate below them and both were already defeated on more then once before getting to pacman. Barrea was not shot but Eric was coming off loses when he won and lost and did not go on to do much more. Then there is Marquaz win that could of gone either way i would rate Leonard wins over Duran higher since i rate Duran pretty high on the list. Last but not least is Hagler and Oscar well all i have to say is just look what there record looked like before they fought and i say Hagler was in better shape. I mean he was not beaten in a long time and was a Leonard came out of retirement to beat him Oscar was beaten and was part time fighter at the end of his career i dont rate the win the same just cant do it. As for the Hatton win he does not really belong with the names really he some what better then the guy Leonard beat for the Lhw title but not much better. So i would rate Pacman in the top 20 or so because people still rate Leonard between the top 10 and the top 15 so that how i look at it.

[CutMeMick]

Well Mick I won't pretend I know a great deal about a lot of fighters on that list but let me run through a few.

Marvin Hagler. Sorry but Pacquaio in my opinion rates above Hagler. Hagler stuck to a single weight class and fought I believe 3 Hall of Famers, certainly three great fighters. One he KO'd in spectacular fashion, another coming up from lightweight he won on points (I don't think that is all THAT amazing) and the other the Ray Leonard he lost. You may argue it was close but he still lost. He never went to light heavy let alone up to heavyweight which is the equivilant of what Manny has done.

Hopkins, Surely Manny's resume is better than Hop's. Hopkins is a legend but his biggest wins in his prime were against smaller men, and his even though he's a two weight champ he never fought a bigger man in his career, Hopkins was always a light heavyweight. I consider Pacquaio's resume to be above Hopkins.

Joe Luis reigned for an awful long time but he never beat anyone in the top 20 All time great list so how can you disqualify Pacqauio for not having done that (when there simply havnt been any top 20 all times for him to fight) but not penalise Luis.

And comparing fights Pacqauio's wins are better than Luis no question imo. Luis never fought any other all time great heavy's yet Pacqauio has beaten a who's who of all time greats.

Monzon, again ruled only one weight class. I don't know a great deal about his opponents but Naples and Emille Griffith were the best I believe and to me are no better than Barrera and Morales on an all time. Add in Marquez, Hatton and De Le Hoya and I think Manny eclipses him.

Willie Pep is another that mystifies me a bit. Stuck in one division as far as I know and the only fighters he fought whose names I recognise he lost to.

Well Bilbs I think you and I both know it's easy to grab any fighter in history and just nit pick and take them apart with their career.

I simply don't think it as impressive to stay in one weight class and beat all comers (actually most in your list didn't even do that they lost significant fights as well) rather than move through 6 (SIX!!) weight classes and beat the BEST in those division.s

Let's clarify something being that you've made this comment a couple times now. The he beat the Best in those div.
Pac was just a title holder in the Fly div. beating Sasakul was def. a good win. But let's not forget that "Too Sharp" was there in that division and was considered to be the best.

Let's remember he was loosing to Agapito in their fight and and was down at least 3 points. It was a very dirty fight and Agapito was as dirty as they came if not for the point 2 deductions Pac would have lost this fight.

Pac did beat MAB and clearly. So yes he did beat the best at Super. Bantam. Then he fought to a Draw vs. JMM in a fight that NOT just several but a lot of people feel he lost.

He then get's clearly outboxed and hustled by Erik.
Then the whole Erik loses to Zahir but who cares boxing politics...

At Super Feather yes he did beat JMM the best in the div. on paper but again refer to the boxing circle and pan out a poll which has been posted on here about boxing writers and analist and all had JMM wining.

At Lightweight it's clear it was a tue up/gimmie fight for him he picked up a title but did not beat the best. Shit! I'd go as far as saying Diaz was around the 6, 7 or 8th best Lightweight at that time.

Let's eye this ODLH @ 147 more the fight was billed as such but Pac scaled in at 142 and not 147 so technically it wasn't at 147. He did exactly what I posted he would do. Beat and mandhandle a guy who had no business trying to make 147. A guy who I said would look like a corpse and guy who hadn't fought at 157 for over 6 yrs.
I'm sorry and you can look up my posts but nothing about what Pac did to ODLH impressed me. Long before ODLHs opponent was even talked about, when I 1st read ODLH to fight at 147 I knew he'd lose.
So this is rated a 147 win for Pac, OK I'll take it but he didn't beat the best.

He did beat the best at 140 and in fashion. Like true great do and again I'm sorry but I don't see how people called this fight 50/50 or close and you can look up my posting from day one of this fight. I said Pac KO and within 5 rounds, I said if Lazcano was able to hurt and wobble him then Pac would just blitz him.
Never in my wildest dreams did I think he'd do it in 2 rounds that is mind blowing.

So let's do a total count here:
- Title holder at Fly
- Title holder at Super Bantam
- Beat the man at Featherweight in MAB (With a draw vs. the 2nd best Feather and a loss to Erik)
- Beat the man at Super Feather
- Title holder at Lightweight
- Beat the man at Lightwelter

I don't know a great deal about his opponents but Naples and Emille Griffith were the best I believe and to me are no better than Barrera and Morales on an all time.

How wrong can you be Bilbo.
If you hoenstly think Emile & Mantequilla are no better then Erik & MAB then theirs nothing I can do.
But I would strongly suggest you get a hold of their career sets.

I think your talking a bit out of your ass there without really having studied Emile & Napoles. But wow!
Believe me this is coming from a fan of both Erik & MAB but nope.com
neither one is at the level of those 2.

For a man to come from flyweight to rule as high as junior welter and beat a legend at welter is something that to my knowledge has never been done in the history of the sport, certainly not in the modern game.

See my post above in regards to beating "ruling"/"beating the best".
I do agree on the weight move and I don't dispute it and never have I think it's crazy for him to do that and is great.

Jones Jr went up to heavyweight, fought the weakest champ and won on points, Manny went up to light welter, fought the undisputed champ at the weight and destroyed him in two rounds.

That is a true fact.
Pac also moved up in weight and took on the weakest champ in Diaz and starched him.
I def. give him ALL the praise in the world for the distruction he did on Hatton but nothing you say will change my mind on the ODLH fight and the Diaz fight.

He is the kind of fighter the likes of which I don't think has ever been seen in the sport exactly, a fighter who not only went through 6 weight classes, an elite few have done that, but he fought the best in those divisions, and he destroyed most of them! Who else in the history of boxing has done that?
Not Jones Jr, Not Sugar Ray Leonard, not Robinson, not Duran, certainly not Hagler, Monzon, Pep etc.
He is unique in the history of the sport.

Again see my post above about the "best" comment.
Yes he did beat the best in some of those div. but not all and I'm not taking from him just clarifying your comment.
I do agree again that what he has done in just within a few years is crazy the moving up in weight and I do praise him for it.

But we don't know where his career will go and how it will end so to say he's top 5 all time or top 10 is IMO off.
He's def. an ATG.

[OumaFan]

I hate these lists but I'd say he's already reached top 30, somewhere in there, what he's done is just ridiculous and its a proven fact that a guy gets "better" the longer he's been retired, we put older fighters up on a pedestal just generally.

He's probably the fighter of this generation right now, as much as I'm a Hopkins fan. And Floyd's somewhere there too obviously.

[Typhoon]

Pac is now somewhere 10 to 20.

[Spicoli]

I think alot of this is understandable but a bit premature.Its 'in the now' and what we're experiencing first hand,very easy to grasp and get our eyes on.Shite every generation does it,But I really dont think you can fairly peg a guy still active and who,in the BIG picture of the sport still has a way to go yet.A little hindsight and prospective goes along way.Is he a great fight,absofrigginlutly,one of the best we have had a pleasure to experience over the last decade.Has he accomplished more and been a better fighter overall then say Whitaker,Robinson,Ali,Armstrong,Leonard,etc,etc?Co me on now,really.

[Quinito]

He can't be that far from Henry Armstrong. Pac is difinitely one of the top 25 ATGs.

[Youngblood]

Seeing as his career is far from over, I'd say he is building a damn good case for top 5.

[:::PSL:::]

Seeing as his career is far from over, I'd say he is building a damn good case for top 5.

Agreed. He just keeps on improving.

I know it's weird, but Pac gives me the creeps. A little scary.

[fan johnny]

Being a undefeated fighter is overrated.... Give me a fighter that faces all comers win or lose and I say he is a pure fighter!

Give me a fighter that that is selective about who he faces and I say he is managing his career.

I have to wonder now with that performance over Hatton, just how far gone was De La Hoya. Perhaps Pacquiao deserves more credit that he's gotten for defeating a good fighter rather than a completely shot fighter.

I put Pacquiao in as a solid top 20 on anyone's list. Top 10 on Pac fanatic's and Top 5 on loves lists....

[amat]

If you look at Armstrongs record, he lost 3 of his first 4, was KO'd in his first fight and had a record of 72-11-7 when he won his first world title.

Um Bilbo, what does this have to do with anything? You do realize that if you hold this against Armstrong then you have to hold Pacquiao's early losses against him right? That seems wildly inconsistent on how you judge your fighters. Right? I mean if Armstrong getting KO'd in his first fight excludes him, what would Pacquiao falling like a ton of bricks to a Torrecampo body shot do to him?

[Kev]

If you look at Armstrongs record, he lost 3 of his first 4, was KO'd in his first fight and had a record of 72-11-7 when he won his first world title.

Um Bilbo, what does this have to do with anything? You do realize that if you hold this against Armstrong then you have to hold Pacquiao's early losses against him right? That seems wildly inconsistent on how you judge your fighters. Right? I mean if Armstrong getting KO'd in his first fight excludes him, what would Pacquiao falling like a ton of bricks to a Torrecampo body shot do to him?

No Amat I brought up Amstrongs early record to counter the claims about Pacquaio's early losses. You see Mick and others have already stated Pacquaio lost early in his career and was struggling against Agapito as if that's a disqualification from greatness.

It isn't, what matters is heights a fighter aspires to, not whether he had a faultless run to get there. Pacquaio lost fights early in his career, and I was highlighting the fact that even the great Henry Armstrong, nearly always number 3 on an all time great list had a bunch of early losses too, including being KO'd in his very first fight, and that he had already been defeated 11 times before he won his first world title.

So you cannot disqualify Pacquaio from conversations of greatness based on early losses any more than you can Armstrong.


I also went on to ask the question (which nobody has answered) what was it about Armstrong's three world title at three weight classes simultaneously that was better than Manny's three world titles at three weight classes in 15 months?

Agains this isn't a statement but a question. Was Armstrongs opposition better than Mannys? Did he beat fighters who are also considered to be in the top 20 All Time greats, remember CutMeMick says Pac is disqualified from being Top 20 right noe because he hasn't beaten another Top 20 of all time great, so I'm just asking the question how many Top 20 All Times did Armstrong beat?

It is my belief, as I said earlier that had Manny achieved what he has achived in the last three years or so but 50 years ago he would be regarded as easily top 10 of all time maybe even top 5 were he to retire on this note.

[zhubin]

Pac is unquestionably the #1 pfp fighter in the world. He is now also the biggest draw in boxing. Mad respect to him. Having said that...some people are clearly getting carried away by already putting him in the top 5 all time, let alone top 10. He beat Barrera twice. He fought Marquez twice: first fight a draw, second fight a questionable win. He fought Morales 3 times: lost the first time, beat a shot Eric the second and third fights. He beat an average lightweight in Diaz. He beat a past it and weight drained Oscar (though he still deserves massive respect for beating a 147 pounder). And now he beat Hatton...which is a legitamately big win, especially the way he won. Now...that is not a bad resume at all. In fact...Manny is one of the few fighters who fights the best out there. STILL...no where near top 10 or top 5. IF...he beats Floyd...then we can have a serious discussion.