Media Max Kellerman on ESPN: Manny Pacquiao has a case for the best pound-for-pound fighter ever

Smashus Clay said:
Liston x2/Patterson x2/Frazier x2/ Norton x2 and Big George vs Barerra x2/Morales x2/Marquez fights and his run at WW.

I'll fully admit I could be bias, after Pac beat Barerra and Morales I was Tidwell levels of salty haha.
Click to expand...

Pac was lineal at 5 weight classes, won belts across 8 divisions. Even though Ali was a heavyweight, you can’t gloss over that in a p4p argument. Ali was a one weight class fighter.

Pac also has a better resume. Some of Ali’s opponents are overrated in hindsight basically because just they fought Ali.

Ken Norton was not that great of a fighter. He was good, but he lost to everybody great (Holmes, Foreman, Shavers, Ali, even Cooney). He is defined by one win over Ali, which was avenged twice. He is not nearly as accomplished as JMM, Barrera, Morales, Cotto, and Hatton. He's more in the category of a guy like Timothy Bradley if you really look at his record.

So as great as Ali was, Pac just has a much longer list of accomplishments than Ali.
 
Last edited:
Ali>Pacquiao
And everyone knows this
Mayweather>Pacquiao as well
 
nac386 said:
Good post. But I don’t think it ever makes sense to say a larger fighter did not use his larger size. Size affects everything we do. For example, Spence outboxed Garcia, does that mean his size didn’t matter? Of course his size mattered. His durability, reach, power, punch resistance, etc. Same thing with Canelo and Cotto. Canelo outboxed Cotto, but are we pretending Canelo’s size had nothing to do with his and Cotto’s approach? Canelo vs Cotto would obviously be a different looking fight if Canelo was the smaller man.

The argument for Pac over Floyd depends on his list of accomplishments, not a single head-to-head matchup with both at nearly 40 years of age. Sandy Sadler beat Willie Pep three times I believe. Who’s typically higher on p4p lists?
Click to expand...

Good point

My understanding is after over 100 fights, pep was involved in a plan crash and after that was never the same fighter, many felt, all his fights with saddler were after this.

So during his prime nobody got the better of him, in a saga, that's why I would put people like pep (Ali, floyd, rjj, sugar ray x 2) above people like Manny or dempsey, who got bested in their primes, by guys their size, like marquez and tunney
 
don't quote me! said:
Good point

My understanding is after over 100 fights, pep was involved in a plan crash and after that was never the same fighter, many felt, all his fights with saddler were after this.

So during his prime nobody got the better of him, in a saga, that's why I would put people like pep (Ali, floyd, rjj, sugar ray x 2) above people like Manny or dempsey, who got bested in their primes, by guys their size, like marquez and tunney
Click to expand...

Pep was only 25 years old when that plane crash occurred. The fact that he had 100 fights already is just a symptom of the times. He had lost in prime before that plane crash to Sammy Angott, a guy that does not carry the legacy of a Juan Manuel Marquez.

It's an incredibly unfortunate thing that happened, but I can't use a plane crash as evidence when measuring two resumes against each other. When you take their entire careers into consideration, I think it's next to impossible to make a convincing argument that Willie Pep accomplished more.
 
nac386 said:
Ken Norton was not a great fighter. He was good, but he lost to everybody great. He is defined by one win over Ali, which was avenged twice. He is not nearly as accomplished as Miguel Cotto, and also not as accomplished as Ricky Hatton, etc.
Click to expand...

Norton was absolutely great.
Your argument that he's defined by the Ali victory merely says that you're not familiar with his other victories and you think he beat merely journeymen aside from Ali.

Also Ali was Ali... You could also argue that Frazier was defined by his win over Ali. Only difference is that Ali beat Joe Frazier decisively in the rematch and rubber match, while you could score the rematch and rubber match in favor of Norton, because they were razor close. Especially the rubber match, which even Ali admitted to have lost.
 
mozfonky said:
No case whatsoever. Not even the best of his time.
Click to expand...

I agree its laughable that Kellerman said that.

But bro didn't you say you dont even watch boxing anymore and aren't familiar with the boxers of the last ten years or something lol
 
defjaam said:
Norton was absolutely great.
Your argument that he's defined by the Ali victory merely says that you're not familiar with his other victories and you think he beat merely journeymen aside from Ali.

Also Ali was Ali... You could also argue that Frazier was defined by his win over Ali. Only difference is that Ali beat Joe Frazier decisively in the rematch and rubber match, while you could score the rematch and rubber match in favor of Norton, because they were razor close. Especially the rubber match, which even Ali admitted to have lost.
Click to expand...

Of course, people who fight great fighters are often defined by those fights. Ali was larger than life and that rubbed off on a quite a few fighters. Ken Norton was the greatest recipient of that rub. "Great" is a subjective term without any real meaning here, so I'll just say that in my opinion Ken Norton is overrated due to his victory over Ali.

I think we give bonus points to certain fighters because of memorable moments and nostalgia.
 
nac386 said:
Ken Norton was not a great fighter. He was good, but he lost to everybody great. He is defined by one win over Ali, which was avenged twice. He is not nearly as accomplished as Miguel Cotto, and also not as accomplished as Ricky Hatton, etc.
Click to expand...

I think Hatton and Norton are compatible. Hatton got the lineal title beating a 36 year old who went ahead and never fought again afterwards. Had a very tough fight with Collazo and then proceeds to get annihilated by both Floyd and Manny.

Norton lost to Cooney at 38, Shavers while not elite gave alot of really excellent fighters trouble and after that just has losses to prime George and Ali. The guy would easily be a title holder in today's division.

I will say this is alot closer than I thought it would be when I first read your post.
 
nac386 said:
Pep was only 25 years old when that plane crash occurred. The fact that he had 100 fights already is just a symptom of the times. He had lost in prime before that plane crash to Sammy Angott, a guy that does not carry the legacy of a Juan Manuel Marquez.

It's an incredibly unfortunate thing that happened, but I can't use a plane crash as evidence when measuring two resumes against each other. When you take their entire careers into consideration, I think it's next to impossible to make a convincing argument that Willie Pep accomplished more.
Click to expand...

Pep was a similiar age(when he lost to angott) to manny when manny was being KO'd to Torrecampo or Singsurat. I can largely overlook such losses. I can't overlook getting Ko'd by 37 yr old Marquez, (when you are still in your prime) after struggling with his style for so many yrs. You need to clean our era, before going head to head, with our greats. A one off loss, is 1 thing, losing a rivalry, with someone your size, in your prime, is something else.
 
lukeuidswords said:
His biggest accomplishments are becoming world champion in both his teens and his 40s, and winning titles in 8 divisions

Both of which I think (I could be wrong) are achievements exclusive to him in the history of boxing
Click to expand...
Pacman won an IBO belt and a Ring magazine lineal belt against Hatton, IBO is not an official recognize belt, and Ring lineal belt is not an official belt

so he was NEVER a champion at 140 pounds ever. he only fought there once. He also never won a belt at 126 pounds.

He only fought two fights at featherweight and drew with Marquez and again Barrera vacated his titles before fighting Pacquiao and all Barrera had was the Ring lineal title, that counts for nothing in terms of record on file.

so Pac never won a belt at 126.
 
TidWell said:
Pacman won an IBO belt and a Ring magazine lineal belt against Hatton, IBO is not an official recognize belt, and Ring lineal belt is not an official belt

so he was NEVER a champion at 140 pounds ever. he only fought there once. He also never won a belt at 126 pounds.

He only fought two fights at featherweight and drew with Marquez and again Barrera vacated his titles before fighting Pacquiao and all Barrera had was the Ring lineal title, that counts for nothing in terms of record on file.

so Pac never won a belt at 126.
Click to expand...

Lol. “Pac was never a champion at 140 because he was only the Ring lineal champion and IBO champion at 140.”
 
Most accomplished perhaps, but not the best ever.
 
Only ever 8 weight world champ o_Odurrr of course he's in the conversation.
 
@TidWell you were the “not good until ESPN says so” guy. Are you trying to reinvent yourself?

Very bold, I have to say.
 
I don't think Pacquiao or Mayweather do. Pacquiao has one of the better lists of wins, though. I'd say he is the best of his generation in that regard, even if he isn't the top fighter of his generation.
 
nac386 said:
Max stating pretty obvious facts here. If you look at Pacquiao at his best, and then you look at his career accomplishments, he is certainly in incredibly rare company on a p4p list. It’s very easy to have him in the top 5, especially when you consider other guys often considered to be in that category. I’d put him above Muhammad Ali and Willie Pep, two guys that are often up there.

People are nostalgic about those old grainy black and white tapes. Put Pacquiao in some old timey looking footage running through every division from flyweight to light middleweight and we’d unanimously have him very solidly in the top 5.
Click to expand...

I don't think we'd unanimously have him in the top 5. Top 15, yes. Top 10, probably. But there are some fighters with incredible resumes in the sport's history. Of course, this brings up the old discussion about how hard it is to compare considerably different eras.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,237,095
Messages
55,467,322
Members
174,786
Latest member
plasterby

Share this page

Back
Top