Quote Originally Posted by Fenster View Post
Quote Originally Posted by JazMerkin View Post
On a side note, whilst I can definitely understand having Pacquiao as #1, using Merchant, who very clearly flat out hates Mayweather to support the idea, isn't a great choice. Also Mayweather didn't call Hatton his toughest opponent, he was simply complimentary post-fight. He in fact named Emmanuel Augustus as toughest guy he'd ever fought, and if you've seen the punishment Augustus took in that fight you'd understand why. The guy who gave him the hardest fight is clearly Castillo. Not saying Pac doesn't deserve to be #1, I can definitely see strong arguments why, I just think the writer could have picked better people to support the argument.
If you think Merchant is bad.. check out boxing historian and author - Mike Silver. I thought he was a bit out-of-order calling Hatton a "club fighter" ... it turns out he also reckons Mayweather wouldn't beat ANY top welterweight contender of the 1950s and 1960s and would have lost against plenty of champs from the 70s and 80s.

He clearly doesn't rate modern boxers. I would have liked to have seen what he REALLY said about Pacquiao
Yeah, I didn't dig into it, but it didn't look like the best supporting argument. I mean Merchant & Mayweather so obviously flat out hate each other that using one as judgement of the other's abilities is just stupid. I think to say he wouldn't beat any top contender of that time shows this guy is a joke, one of those people who likes to romantacize the old days a bit much. Then you have guys who refuse to give ANY credit to boxers from the past because things have apparently 'improved'

He probably said that Pancho Villa would have murdered Pacquiao in the 1st second of the 1st round