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

[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.