Pacquiao wins world titles in 7 weight classes? Bullshit.

Flyweight: 12/4/1998 KO8 Chatchai Sasakul (wins WBC)
Jr. Featherweight: 6/23/2001 KO6 Lehlo Ledwaba (wins IBF)
Jr. Lightweight: 3/15/2008 SW12 JMM (wins WBC)
Lightweight: 6/28/2008 KO9 David Diaz (wins WBC)
Welterweight: 11/14/2009 KO12 Miguel Cotto (wins WBO)

 

WBO hardly counts as a real title.
Are you saying the Pac is champ in 4 classes?

 

Yeah, I was wondering how they came up with that number.

 

Hatton & Barrera were the recognized champions of their divisions. If anything he has a better claim to those classes than to welter and flyweight. We can't moan endlessly about the illegitimacy of the alphabet soup one moment then pretend Pac wasn't champ at feather & 140 the next.:notallthere:

 

"We" doesn't include mE.

World titles are not something you have a 'claim' to, you either have one or you don't. Pacquiao didn't. He had a claim to be the best at feather and jr. welter, but he didn't have a world championship.

He chose $ over legacy; he chose (perhaps) to fight more meaningful fights than to fight titlists; he chose to do what he did and it worked out quite well for him. EXCEPT by chosing the fights he did, he gave up the claim to being a world titlist at feather and jr welter.

So now he can suck it. (same with you dym ::)

Like everyone else, I'm a pacq fan, btw.

 

Hatton was junior welterweight champion. Linear champ, Ring magazine champ, champ. The Barrera fight was longer ago, but as I remember the situation was precisely the same - he had dropped the alphabet soup titles over sanctioning fees or BS mandatories or some other thing but was still linear champ, ring magazine champ, champ and had done nothing in the way of long lay offs or ducking challengers to abuse that position.

I couldn't give a FUCK whether the corrupt old codgers of the wbc or ibf consider him champ. You beat the champ, you're the champ.

 

Hatton was the lineal 140lb champ after he beat Tszyu and not a single fighter took that title, or any of his baubles, in the ring prior to his getting sparked clean out by Manny.

When Pac beat Hatton he became the lineal champion at that weight. No amount of semantics involving the various sanctioning bodies can change that fact.

MTF

 

Beat me to it by a minute...

MTF ::

 

Precisely and ditto for Barrera. If anything you can call him a 3 weight champ (126, 130, 140) & 5 weight 'titlist' (112, 122, 130, 135, 147) if you like. But since ring champ is a more credible title than any alphabet mumbo jumbo, really he's a 7 weight titlist. How many of those he's legit 'champ' in, beyond the 3 I listed is unfortunately muddy water (though no muddier than Leonard, Hearns, Floyd or Oscar's comparable claims).

 

So, basically, Pac was The Champ at two divisions at best. Easy work for Floyd.

 

I would expect a casual fan to ignore 126 and 140.

But someone who actually follows boxing? Stop being a meatball and pay attention, mikE.

 

So who is the champ when a lineal claim evaporates?
Can a lineal champ lose his claim any way but in the ring? If so, how?

 

So how do you noncasual fans determine winning titles? Belts + lineal claims based upon belts + lineal claims based upon your thoughts at the time + Ring belts + IBO International belts w/lineal claim + ?

 

Exactly. If you count his ring championships as being the champion at Jr. welterweight and featherweight, then you have to take away a few of his title claims, at least David Diaz, who is a bum and Cotto, who wasn´t even allowed to weigh in at 147. His title reign spanned seven weight divisions, if one wants to count the WBO 145 pound welterweight title.

 

Fact is, I made the claim back when Pacquiao was ignoring belts and fighting for the international belt. I know Pacquiao is a tough sell, but when you guys get your arguments together, I'm guessing that your logic will betray you with regard to other fighters.

 

::::

 

This.

 

::

 

The lineal champ at 140 was Hatton. It hadn't evaporated by the time Pac got to him, though Hatton's claim to it certainly did by the time the fight was over... ::

In any event, The Ring champ was Hatton, and IMHO and in the opinion of many others, that title has a hell of a lot more credibility than most of the various sanctioning bodies dishing out belts right now.

MTF

 

Exactly...

Neither Hatton NOR Barrera had been BEATEN for their CLAIMS to a Title UNTIL Pac Disposed of them...Hatton AND Barrera were the TOP RATED Guys in their Divisions when Pac Beat them...



REED:hammert:

 

Exactly. The Ring belt has much more credibility than the WBC.

Pacquiao is a legit 7 weight champ.

 

Four belts or seven, it shouldn't matter. Belts have lost their meaning and what we should consider now is the level of opponents he has beaten instead of some useless titles. For example I consider Henry Armstrong's three world titles bigger achievement than six title belts

 

Mayweather beats Pac by unanimous decision. Take that to the bank.

 

mikE is a Contrarian BULLSHIT Artist, Steve-Dave...It's how he Draws ATTENTION To Himself...



REED:shit:

 

There's always at least one...unfortunately.

 

Yeah, I don't remember ever agreeing with him.

Is he arguing that Pacquiao fought MAB at feather at the expense of his legacy? ::

 

:bears:This of course is the bottom line. The rest is just technicality and anorak historicizing.

 

Agreed. Also, at 122, Larios was usually ranked higher.

 

I think his point was that either we count the title belts or not but not both ways around. Hatton and Barrera were true champions and Pac beat them, but all those beltholders were not. So you have to define what you mean by seven-division champion, since it is obvious Pacquiao has not proven to be the best fighter in the world in all of them.

To me, the fact that Pac began from flyweight and has beaten 2-3 good or great real higher weight champions is the big thing, not five paper titles (which everybody usually ridicules)

 

Agreed with this. I certainly don't consider him a champion in seven weights, but the way mikE went about arguing his point is ridiculous.