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.