Whos Greater Historically?

by everyone who seems to find the comparison absurd to begin with?

 

As you know, Im considerably more impressed by what hes done post-130 than yourself.

 

Pacquiao

 

I know that

The problem is that there are probably 50 welterweights who would have duplicated the results or bettered them if given such a group of opponents

we can't just say "well, he's only a flyweight, so it's more impressive" ... he's fighting as a welterweight, that means he gets judged as one

A contemporary of Manny's, some guy called Mayweather, a junior lightweight has taken on 4 of the same men and dominated each of them, in every case doing so before Pacquaio did

I don't see how it is particularly objective for Mayweather to be seen as a ducking shyster while his principle rival has taken on four different guys only after they had been beaten by him

I can't help but feel that if the roles were reversed but the styles and personalities were the same and Floyd was the "flyweight" and was beating 4 guys after Manny Pacquaio had already hammered them, that the adulation would be about 1/5 of what it currently is

 

I don't see it like that at all. Of course it's more impressive!

 

Not to me, it isn't... not when some of these guys are having to make artificial weight limits in order to get the fights in the first place... and again, I can only reference how differently this entire excursion would turn out in an era when the sport isn't on life support

 

When did Mayweather arrive at Welter, compared with Pacquiao? THREE times now Mayweather has won the WW crown, and refused routinely to act in a manner befitting of a champion. Finally, Im not going to judge a guy who was a world-class boxer as low as 115/118 the same as I do a guy who never even fought below 130, for the same reason I wouldnt be as harsh a marker of Georges Carpentier at Heavyweight as I would, say, George Foreman, just because theyre competing in the same division.

 

I agree, there's no comparison.

It's far, far more impressive.

Should Roy's win over Ruiz be no more highly regarded than Tua's or Holyfield's? I give it significantly more credit, because Roy is probably a natural super middle, Ruiz was significantly bigger.

If Gamboa moved up to 147 next week and beat the crap out of Victor Ortiz, should he be given no more credit than Floyd for example?

 

Agreed completely. His jump to Welter and beyond was far more rapid than Mayweathers to boot.

 

Not only that but he's smaller than Floyd. The guy looks fucking tiny at 147, Floyd doesn't look out of place.

 

Bingo.

 

I see what you're saying... But how many former 122lb title holders (forgetting he is the former FLYWEIGHT champion) would you pick over Cotto at 145? The run since moving up has been one feather in his cap after another.

 

Have a look at him next to 140lb Kahn, even. Tells the story.

 

Not just beating Cotto, either, but beating the absolute DAYLIGHTS outta him. Cotto would have to fight on another 5+ years to find even a CAREER Welter who could beat him so badly.

As Mex said in the other thread, sometimes it aint who (or just who) you beat, but how you beat em. As a Foster and Pryor advocate, CDogg shouldnt take that lightly.

 

I think it's a ridiculous double-standard to put the screws to Mayweather and then place a halo atop the head of a man, many of whose choicest scalps are used-up retreads of Mayweather's, especially if the man being canonized may very well be cheating in order to obtain those results

I don't think anyone believes for a second that Mayweather's rise in weight occured outside the confines of what is legal... that, combined with the disturbing trend of fighting the same men after Mayweather has already dominated them (and received very little credit) takes quite a lot of the luster off of it for me

And I still maintain, size or not, that these guys have been an overwhelmingly sorry lot... either fading name guys coming off of relatively recent, brutal losses who were overrated to begin with (Margarito, Cotto, Hatton) or washed-up name guys who were good 11 years ago (Hoya, Mosley)

Until somebody else with a fear of needles comes along audacious enough to engage in suspicious training practices, Pacquaio will still have the plausible deniability... "he's only a flyweight!!!" ... but I would find it pretty humorous if a Nonito Donaire started "gearing up" for a run at the big boys and was similarly successful

 

Hatton was overrated? At 140lb? The guy was a clear, consensus number one at the weight for near half a decade until Mannt got hold of him.

MTF

 

it was a lousy division and he had looked like crap against an already fading Juan Lazcano... I was surprised it ended that quickly, but I was not surprised Pacquiao won

 

You wont see Donaire, or anyone else down around there, duplicating Pacquiaos efforts, or even daring to try, in spite of huge rewards on offer. Take that to the bank.

Almost no NATURAL 147lber in the world could have beaten Cotto like that.

Almost no NATURAL 147lber in the world could have beaten Clottey like that.

ZERO NATURAL 140lbers in the world could have beaten Hatton like that (or at all, even).

Almost no NATURAL 154lber in the world could have beaten Margarito like that.

 

Agreed, regardless how you felt about those opponents, what other smaller men would you pick to jsut DESTROY them like that?

Think about, as steve said, think about what former 122 pound champion you would pick to move up and beat (let alone dominate) all the guys Pacquiao has at 140+.

His accomplishments are incredible, and they are starting to be underrated or taken for granted.

It's really this simple to me - if it was that easy (PEDs etc) other fighters would be doing it RIGHT NOW, as it would be a pretty easy route to achieving a level of money and glory they wouldn't normally be capable of.

 

there's how many genuinely good, dangerous fighters out there to make a comparison with?

 

I suspect we could be seeing similar jumping around in the coming years

 

Its MASSIVELY taken for granted. MASSIVELY.

 

Greater historically != better fighter, I was saying Hagler is greater as in he's better. Marvin Hagler was a complete fighter. He could outbox slicksters, outslug sluggers, or the other way around. He had an all-time chin, could hurt you with either hand, fight in southpaw or orthodox, etc etc.

If they were the same size, a prime Hagler would beat down Manny Pac.

 

Exactly , he looked better than ever against Paulie

 

yup

 

'nuff said

 

You are talking as though Clottey, Cotto, Margarito, Hatton are on the level of the guys the Klitschkos beat up. Stiffs!? Not one guy there is a stiff and not one guy there isnt a world-ranked fighter in the majority of past eras. And you still cant pinpoint even one man to duplicate what Pacquiaos done. Just a theory it will be done, somdd time in the near-future.

I wouldnt count on it.

 

"Beat him down!?"

Not a prayer. Not even a ghost of a chance. Only in a straight fight at MW could that ever occur.

 

Clottey is a top ten contender at any point from 1950-2000? where? He's a guy who keeps his hands up for 12 rounds and loses decisions... what good welterweight ever would have any difficulty with him?

Cotto was damaged goods, absolutely damaged goods... Margarito had already been knocked dead by a 90 year old Mosley... In what era besides now are these guys trouble for a healthy top-5 ranked welterweight? They are/were ranked because the pool is a puddle... If this is 1996, those guys are the guys you are put in with for a test as you are guided to a title shot... You want to go by rankings, the Klitschkos opponents were every bit as "world ranked" as those guys

Hatton is far and away the most impressive win out of those guys

 

And you dont even rate that win.