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

[SlimTrae]

I'm starting to question if a person should be considered an ATG that never unifies a division.

Let's take Pacman for starters. Undoubtedly will go down as one of the best of his era. Some will say ATG. IMO he is the most exciting of this era, hands down.


1st chance to hold 2 titles is against Sanchez, ends in a draw
2nd chance to hold 2 titles is against JMM in 2003 who held 2. Ends in Draw.
3rd chance to hold 2 titles against Morales -both vacant, he loses, unanimously.
Immediately gets a belt after loss
Takes on Cotto for his WBO & a vacant belt. He wins. Now some could say, well he won 2 titles, however he never defended this belt. A diamond title, so does that count?
Pac wouldn't fight again for multiple belts until Floyd. He loses.

Explain from your POV how it is possible to be an ATG in several divisions he never unified?

[Master]

It could be argued Manny PAC would be an ATG in the p4p category like Thomas Hearns rather than a champion at 1 weight like Hagler did.

So his achievement was moving up in weight and beating champions in the division rather than unifying the title which is political and takes more time with the amount of titles there are.

The reason why he chose that option was money, legacy and convenience. I think he made the right choices.

[SlimTrae]

Example of an ATG.
JMM!

Wins vacant IBF title, defends and gains WBA from Gainer. Successfully defends both belts twice before losing to Chris John.
Beats the Lineal Champ, Casamayor.
Wins LW for the WBA, WBO, IBO.
Humbled by PBF, then rebounds and wins 2 titles yet again WBA & WBO champ.
Final fight of his career he wins WBO welter.


He didn't just win titles moving up in weight, he came as close as one can to when it is about cleaning out the division. Now had he done an AJ, won multiple belts early on and never did it again, not sure how I would rate him.

But because he faced the best from Feather & Up and won in every weight class, holding multiple titles at the same time, is a testimony to that of a ATG!

[Master]

JMM lost his last fight against Bradley?

[Fenster]

Hold up, dude, if you credit Marquez for "lineal" (beating Casamayor) - Pac is lineal at flyweight (Sasakul), featherweight (Barrera) and 140 (Hatton), it can be argued superfeather and welterweight too if you want to bring The Ring Magazine into it.

[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.

[X]

I would say so, definitely.

The Alphabet Boys and their 'belts' are greedy and uncaring scumbags who exist just to claw in sanctioning fees. It is their fault that there are few unified champions!

Firstly, it is so difficult to hold more than one belt because the Alphabet Boys/Scammers don't tend to recognise a rival champion in their top ten so it's almost impossible for a champ to become the mandatory challenger for another belt (how convenient for the sanctioning bodies)

Even if a fighter somehow and against the odds succeeds in unifying, then he suddenly has multiple mandatory challengers. How many times has a good champion been spuriously stripped of a belt for failing to make an (impossible) defence against a mandatory who doesn't bring cash to the table.

I certainly wouldn't ratify the Alphabet Boys as being somehow instrumental in any debate about an ATG fighter!

[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.

[SlimTrae]

The fiasco with Canelo and losing a belt does highlight the problem that appears deeper than ducking, rather promoters haggling.

However, there appears to be certain fighters that are able to secure belts beyond their own camp.

Let's say Usyk retired tomorrow. As hard as it is to get one belt, he snatched everyone up. 5 years, 16 fights 4 belts same time. Would we say he didn't fight long enough to earn a place at the HOF? When in his short tenure he has done something we claim is very difficult to do; get more than one belt.

For me the point isn't about equating multiple belts to ATG status, rather that old term: cleaning out the division equates ATG status!

@Fenster. The Lineal statement was just a part of what JMM did. I wanted to focus how that came about. IMO he was chasing for the rematch, but he didn't have any easy road to get that rematch & rubber. So he beat the best in the division compared to Pac's David Diaz.

Pac beating a lineal champ, alone isn't the same, rather with such a strong promoter, how did his illustrious career go on for 20 years without winning 2 belts, let alone 3 at the same time, when he in fact has had several fights which I put up to show. For whatever reasons he came up short.

Doesn't denigrate how he won his fights, just perculiar that a fighter with 20 years didn't carry but one belt at a time.

Hopkins, Golovkin, MW's who snatched a bunch & defended them. IMO that is the workings of ATG. Not just winning a title, but solidifying one's status in their respective division.

Roy Jones another one, WBF, IBO,IBF,WBA,WBC LHW ....how does a fighter who never gained more than one title compared to someone who captured 5?
Or flip the script: Is it a way to say ,how is it possible that someone who held a single title , is as great as someone like RJJ who took all the major, minor and needless belts like the IBA which RJJ had...I don't even know who they are!

[TitoFan]

You make some very good points, Slim.

In fact, I'd say there are two career characteristics (maybe three) that help define an ATG.

One of course is cleaning out a division, as you say. I've become disenchanted with belts for the sake of belts, because joke organizations like the WBC keep on inventing belts to further glorify their fav fighters. But in reality, if you stick around a weight division long enough.... and beat every top contender (and fellow belt holder) in that division.... that is definitely grounds for ATG argument.

Going up several weight divisions successfully is another criteria, IMO. You don't have to do both (that would be grounds for GOAT).... but going up several weight divisions like Manny did, considering that he in fact DID beat some great opposition at those weights.... is IMO worthy of ATG consideration itself.

Finally just quality of opposition throughout your lifetime. At the end of it all, it shouldn't matter that you didn't collect "x or y" numbers of trinkets... or that your body didn't have the amazing ability to gain weight without losing power or speed. If your resume reads like a "Who's Who of Boxing", and you've beaten a hell of a lot more greats than you lost to, well..... maybe that alone should qualify you for ATG on its own.

[Fenster]

@SlimTrae - Roy Jones silly alphabets won't ever mean anything to actual boxing nerds ("historian/hardcores" for sensitive types). He picked those up because of his influence with the organisations (the higher profile the fighter the more the sanction fee) and TV company (they promote fighters who sell/get ratings, "world" champions sell, regardless of substance/opposition).

Roy was one of my heroes but with hindsight he would NEVER get away with that "duck" shit today.

Anyone not a racist understands boxing is a global sport.

[Spicoli]

I have to go in with the trinkets are a dime dozen line of thinking too. The man is one of few remaining that has transcended the sport world wide. Based simply on level of competition and top caliber consistency I'd definitely rate him an ATG. Any record can be dissected and honestly many a fighter would kill to have Mannys worst night. Lost to Mayweather in a fight 5 years beyond its shelf life, lost to a great in Morales but revenged not once but twice. A draw with Marquez first time and got planked once but that only bolstered Marquez as an all time great with two more fights among them. The Bradley loss was gar'bage as was the Horn decision and the 'draw' with Sanchez speaks more to Agapito while decent also a very..very dirty fella at time. Ironically same with Norwood v Marquez. The man just brought one of the top welterweights to school in Thurman. Dropped him off, handed him his bag lunch and patted Keith on the head. Manny has swam in a pool of quality fighters from near beginning to literally his last appearance and is in the drivers seat on if or who might think he's ready to be plucked. Hopefully not Spence or Crawford because that will see Manny lumpy and bumpy but he's going on his next generation of top tier challenges. Belts come and go to be handed around like door prizes. Good matches excellent foes, fan respect and appreciation and consistency that's Manny.

[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.

[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.