How would Manny Pacquiao have fared in 1982?

I'd pick Pacman over Pryor, and certainly over Sanchez.

Some people get accused of looking back at older generation fighters with rose tinted glasses.

Now that might be true to some extent, but honestly I think it's more taking contemporary fighters for granted. I mean, we're just used to them, they're here and now, we don't hold them in the same mythical light as former greats.

Pacman is the best fighter since Duran. He is better than Sanchez, he is better than Pryor.

Out of the names listed, I would only pick a prime Leonard to beat him.

 

Wow high praise! Im not so sure he'd even be in the top 5 best fighters since Duran to be perfectly honest - Leonard, Hearns, Hagler, Whitaker, Chavez, Jones, Hopkins Arguello, Pryor, Sanchez & Lopez would all argue the toss on being ranked above him and probably quite a few others.

And I can't overlook Marquez and Morales beating him when I weigh up a Sanchez fight, a guy I consider to be uncontentiously better than either.

Pac is certainly gonna have a stake at greatness at this rate as one of the greatest multi-weight fighters of all time, in that his ability and especially it seems, his power, has followed him across the weight classes to an unprecedented extent. But at any particular weight there are always gonna be quite a few guys I would pick over him.

 

Well, if we're talking about the Pacman that lost to Morales, then I agree.

Pacman is odd though. He's one of the only fighters I can think of that turned pro as a teenager, yet continues to improve right up until more or less 30 years of age.

Most fighters that turned pro that long ago tend to peak early to mid twenties.

I am more talking about the current Pacman. Which is not only a completely different beast to his flyweight/super bantam days, but a different beast to the fighter that lost to Morales.

Once Pacman retires and people have a few years to reflect on him, it'll be more of a general concencus that he is possibly the best fighter since Duran. I already consider him one of the 10 best fighters ever.

By the way, one more thing I'd like to add, I certainly don't think Sanchez is beyond argument, better than Morales and Marquez.

I would say him and Marquez is a pick em fight. With Sanchez, I don't think we ever found out quite how good he was, but I certainly don't see anything that would clearly mark him before Marquez. It's easier to compare Sanchez and Marquez, because they are more similar in style than Morales.

The guys that Sanchez beat (and struggled with, not including Gomez of course, that was 1 sided) would have been fucking flattened by Pacman. And honestly, I can imagine them being beaten more convincingly by Marquez too. Sanchez was a nice boxer, very good fighter, but propelled slightly too much into mythological status. Fuck it, I think Marquez is a better fighter than him ::

 

You might be right. I suppose I just have a hard time getting my head round a world class guy improving through his late 20's the way Pac appears to have, I'm not sure there's a precedent for that. Lennox Lewis might be an example I suppose. Hopkins arguably another one. But in both those cases their improvement was more one of temperament & tactics rather than being taught 'new tricks' per se as Roach is claiming Pac has. The Cotto fight will tell us allot.

 

WOW!!!...

Aaron Pryor would B THE HARDEST Puncher Pacquiao's EVER Faced, Mex...AND the Best Set of WHISKERS Pacquioa's EVER Faced...AND the Highest WORKRATE Pacquiao's EVER Faced...& THE Singlemost AGGRESSIVE Guy Pacquiao's EVER Faced...

AND, Pacquiao would B SMALLER than Pryor, a Guy who FEASTED on Naturally LARGER Men for the BULK of his Career...REED Can't See ANY SMALLER Guy Beating Aaron Pryor @ 140....

Also, Since Pac STRUGGLED MIGHTILY in 2 Fights w/JM Marquez, REED CAN'T Really See him BEATING Salvador Sanchez Either...Sanchez was JUST as ACCURATE & SKILLFUL as Marquez, Only Sanchez had BETTER Defense & a BETTER Chin...Imagine the Marquez-Pac Fights MINUS the Knockdowns???...That's what U'd MORE than Likely See if Pac & Sanchez Ever Fought...

Manny Pac is GREATER than Pryor or Sanchez, but REED DOESN'T Know if he's BETTER Head to Head....

REED:hammert:

 

How would you guys compare the Pacquiao who fought Hatton to the Arguello who fought Pryor in their 1st fight?

 

Pacquiao would have a HUGE Advantage in Speed, but Arguello's TECHNIQUE would B an Interesting Mix w/Manny's ATHLETIC, UNorthodox Approach...

No DEFINITE Winner Either Way...


REED:hammert:

 

True..but there are plenty of folks who overrate recent and/or current fighters as well. I remember folks online trying to tell me how only Ray Robinson was the only fighter in history who MIGHT have a chance against Trinidad or Mosley.

Or some other folks whose Top ten fighters ever includes 5 or 6 fighters from the last 10 years.

Or some folks who are dismissive of fighters of previous generations because they just don't know that much about them.

And I am not saying you do any of this....but it works both ways.

 

Pacquiao is underrated on here.

 

I think people are having a hard time putting what he's done in any context because it's so unusual. A) the aberrant weight hopping and B) the apparent improvement in skill through his late 20's, it's difficult to know how to assimilate what he's doing. Add into the mix that we just don't know how much was left of Oscar and it's very difficult to know where to place Pac's achievements historically.

As I said, the Cotto fight will answer allot of questions. If he really beats MAC impressively we have a really great fighter on our hands, there will be no doubts.

 

And also because a fighter's career can't properly be compared to past fighters's careers until it is over. Remember all the hoopla about Trinidad heading into the Hopkins fight? About Mosley after the first DLH fight? If Manny loses to Cotto, Mosley and/or Mayweather, does that force us to reevaluate the DLH fight and it's significance? Manny still has some fighting left to do.

 

Exactly. Tito was being compared to Ray fucking Robinson going into the B-Hop fight. Most the posters here have been around long enough to remember that, hence the general caution with hyping Pac up TOO much.

Cotto fights a big one.

 

Except Cotto doesn't seem as good as he was when Margarito beat him.

So even if Pacq beats him, it will leave questions.

 

Yes, indeed. There will be folks who will insist the fight was beaten out of Cotto by Margarito's plaster-enhanced mitts.

Now that you mention this...I wonder if Pac & camp have the same questions about Cotto....which may be why this is their next fight.

 

Only stupid groupies did that with Tito, Shane, etc.

If Pacquiao loses his next 5 fights, he still has the best resume since Duran. He's already a champion over a billion weight classes. He's already beaten 5 that I can think of top 10 P4Pers (Morales, Barrera, Marquez, Oscar, Hatton) He's got skills and ability for days.

Tito in his life never had the resume Manny does if he retires today, neither did Roy, neither did Shane, etc.

Yet Manny is getting Obliterated in most of the hypotheticals against the early 80 scene. I'm not saying thats inaccurate, but the swell of universality about this is just further proof Manny is not nearly as well liked as some claim.

 

I love Manny Pacquiao. He is carrying boxing right now, facing the best fighters he can and challenging himself each and every fight.

But in 1982, he would have his hands completely full....as compared to today.

The reason Manny moved up as fast as he did....was that there was no competition at 135 or below anymore.

That would not have been the case in 82.

Not to say that Manny couldn't beat anyone then....

 

Looked as good as ever vs Clottey, IMO. People treated the Clottey fight as if it was a tune up for him he should waltz through....nobody has an easy night with Clottey.

 

you cannot be serious. cotto clearly appears to be damaged goods. he has had several hard fights the past 2 years. beginning with judah.

 

People see what they already believe. If Cotto was damaged goods he wouldn't have beaten Clottey.

 

REED, I used to over analyze fights quite a lot, match ups, fighters etc. I still quite like doing that, purely because I LOVE boxing, and have a fairly in depth appreciation of it from a technical perspective.

But these days I find picking fights is easier by just deciding who is better ::

Sometimes styles make fights, and that's often the case when an underdog wins. But the vast majority of the time, the better fighter wins, good style matchup or not.

Pacman is better than Pryor and Sanchez. He is simply more talented and skilled than the pair of them.

Thinking about it logically, I would have given Sanchez more of a chance.

Manny eats aggressive fighters for breakfast. In recent years only Marquez has troubled Manny, and that was with clever, crafty boxing.

Sanchez was undoubtedly a skilled boxer, but honestly, not quite as tricky and crafty as Gay Marquez. Skilled, but a slightly more simple boxer.

And Pryor would have given Manny a fight on pure strength and aggression and toughness alone, he wouldn't have won though, because he would be receiving over twice as many shots as he was landing. Pacman is just so fast and accurate, especially evident at the higher weights, and hits like a fucker himself.

Like I said I already think Pacman is a top 10 pound for pounder, I have come to believe he really is that good. You have to consider size too, just like Duran. Duran was a natural lightweight, so beating a peak Leonard at welterweight was all the more impressive.

If Pacman beats Cotto AND either Floyd or Mosley I think it'll eventually be taken for granted that he is the best fighter since Duran, and one of the best fighters of all time.

If he loses to any of the 3 I wouldn't hold it against him too much though to be honest. We're talking about a guy who spent almost half of his career as a flyweight.

The fact that he is probably the bookies favourite to beat one of the two best welterweights in the world is amazing in itself.

 

This part I certainly agree with. I think I cracked the code on picking fights recently actually.::

A) is one guy clearly a perceived as being a class above? If so pick him. 90% success rate.
B) If not, fairly even fight? Pick the guy who's faster. 80% success rate.

That's my system from now on. No other factor will be considered and I bet my success rate will sky rocket. The more I analysis fights the more wrong picks I've made ever since I started watching boxing.