By Derek Bonnett:



About a year ago, I grossly offended Manny Pacquiao.

In lieu of applauding his bravery for taking on the much larger Oscar De La Hoya, I questioned the validity of the bout and painted the fight as more of business proposal to ensure an economic surplus for both men. Even when Manny decimated "The Golden Boy", I attributed Oscar’s bewilderment and Nacho Beristain’s silence to part of the script in building Pac-Man toward showdowns with Ricky Hatton and the inevitably come-backing Floyd Mayweather Jr.

I was feeling pretty smart right about this time.

Then the Filipino phenomenon dispatched Hatton with impeccable ease. Finally, I was starting to believe. In spite of having watched Pacquiao dispatch my idol Marco Antonio Barrera and other contemporary legends like Erik Morales, I just didn’t expect him to get this far. I could always find a way for the "next guy" to beat him.

No more.

I’m just going to come out and say it. I’ve said it before in various boxing blogs and have been accused of drinking too much of the Pacquiao Kool-Aid, but now I am formally putting it down in writing. Manny Pacquiao, as we all know, is a surefire hall of famer. Not only that, but he is an all-time great after winning titles from flyweight to welterweight. The next statement may shock some, but he is also in the realm of surpassing Sugar Ray Robinson as the greatest fighter of all-time.

Now, I know that Robinson is the consensus holder of this title and has been for some time since he ended a career with scintillating victories over the likes of Sammy Angott, Fritzie Zivic, Jake Lamotta, Henry Armstrong, Kid Gavilan, Randy Turpin, Rocky Graziano, Gene Fullmer, Carmen Basilio, etc. However, one must question how much nostalgia goes into cementing fighters of yesteryear as the pre-eminent pugilists of a certain weight class, era, or for all time.

Examine Pac-Man’s record. After defeating pretty good fighters like Chatchai Sasakul, Lehlohonolo Ledwaba, and Jorge Elicier Julio, the man who debuted at 106 pounds evolved into a pound for pound great by earning victories over Marco Antonio Barrera (twice), Erik Morales (twice), Oscar Larios, Juan Manuel Marquez, David Diaz, Oscar De La Hoya, Ricky Hatton, and Miguel Cotto. With the exception of his pound for pound contemporary Marquez, he stopped them all.

I’m not trying to dismiss anything Robinson achieved and readily admit he fought way before my time, making it impossible for me to have witnessed his rise to prominence. Perhaps I’m more impressed with the live action I have witnessed within the twenty some odd years I’ve followed professional boxing, but I can readily say that Manny Pacquiao is the greatest fighter of my time. This includes Ray Leonard, Pernell Whitaker, Julio Cesar Chavez, and Ricardo Lopez. Pacquiao’s speed, power, skill, and willingness to fight the best across the board puts him above all of these other icons. Why? Because he repeatedly displayed all of these with dominant performances over the best fighters in each division he climbed into.

I can’t pick against Manny Pacquiao. He’s the best fighter in the world today and, perhaps, the best ever. Should a bout with Floyd Mayweather Jr. come off as most boxing fans expect, I’ll be favoring Pacquiao in that one as well. While Mayweather Jr. and Cotto are very different fighters, the ease in which Pac-Man dismissed the Puerto Rican sensation was incredible. He took the best punches Cotto had to offer, dropped him twice, and busted his face up worse than Antonio Margarito, who some believe had illegal substances in his gloves when they fought.

It makes you wonder.

Regardless of how you feel on the all-time great debate, whoever your man is at the top, Manny Pacquiao is quickly closing the gap.

By Derek Bonnett:

Now, I know that Robinson is the consensus holder of this title and has been for some time since he ended a career with scintillating victories over the likes of Sammy Angott, Fritzie Zivic, Jake Lamotta, Henry Armstrong, Kid Gavilan, Randy Turpin, Rocky Graziano, Gene Fullmer, Carmen Basilio, etc. However, one must question how much nostalgia goes into cementing fighters of yesteryear as the pre-eminent pugilists of a certain weight class, era, or for all time.

This article got me thinking.

If Pacman & Mayweather fight and Pacman wins, does that mean that potentially in say 10 or 15 years time when people look back on his career, could he actually eclipse the great Sugar Ray Robinson?

Be interesting to see what you all think.

Why Mosley? Mosley's beaten one decent but limited fighter in the last few years, and that was in very bizarre circumstances, plus mosley's a drug cheat.

How ludicrous is this? You only need to look at that one extract to see the difference - a man who fought so many legends you need an etc to avoid filling the page. More than 200 fights over 15 years, a 55% KO ratio, fighting 5 or 6 times a year. No-one will EVER surpass a record like that, and to suggest Manny Pacquiao could do it by beating a series of excellent, but not legendary fighters, is insane.

Barrera - a total shock the first time around, Barrera was fading but very slowly and still had a lot to offer. Came to survive their rematch and little else.
Morales: On the slide for a while and still managed to win their first meeting.
Marquez - arguably won the first fight but very close, strong opinions he was robbed second time around. Still, you'd pick the three other famous Mexiocans to beat him in their primes.
Diaz - Please.
De La Hoya - De La Hoya was dead on his feet, even Roach says so.
Hatton - a great win, totally unexpected for me, I started to reconsider Pacquiao
Cotto - astonishing performance, full credit, deserves praise to be heaped on
If he beats Mayweather he's a modern legend and deserves a place among the greats.

But to suggest that's equivalent to beating the likes of Armstrong, Gavilan, LaMotta, Graziano is an insult to the American.

Gav, you look at the vast number of brilliant names on Sugar Ray's resume and then call it ludicrous to question whether Pacquiao is better than Robinson. And then dive into discrediting most of Manny's opponents for various nit-picking reasons and opinions.

D'you not think that if you had been around in the Sugar Ray Robinson era and had as much knowledge about the in's-and-outs of Robinson's opponents you could have done the same with him? I mean Henry Armstrong is probably the best name you could ever have on an a fighter's resume, but it's just a name on Sugar Ray's resume - that's all. I wasn't around the time so will never know for sure, but Armstrong was right at the tail end of his career, a weight division lighter, and having suffered many loses already.

If that ^ fight was signed with Pacquiao now you would go crazy. Rightly so.

Fighter's in the past did fight more, for sure. But out of say 100-200 fights like they had on the old days, a small percentage were real proper career defining fights.

Without labouring the point, SRR excelled in an era where boxers fought more often and without the modern aids that current day boxers are afforded. Had SRR been a competitor in this day, with all the benefits of our time, can you imagine how much more incredible he could have been?
I like Pac a great deal but I balk at these insane comparisons. When we, hopefully, have a fighter of SRR ilk again I would imagine that his worth will be without question.

I dunno about eclipsing SRR.

Pacquiao is definitely an all time great, though.

I was truly amazed on Saturday night at how a fighter who originally won the WBC flyweight title, after round six was literally hunting a fighter like Cotto around the ring at welterweight. Just amazing. How the hell does he do it!?!

How ludicrous is this? You only need to look at that one extract to see the difference - a man who fought so many legends you need an etc to avoid filling the page. More than 200 fights over 15 years, a 55% KO ratio, fighting 5 or 6 times a year. No-one will EVER surpass a record like that, and to suggest Manny Pacquiao could do it by beating a series of excellent, but not legendary fighters, is insane.

Barrera - a total shock the first time around, Barrera was fading but very slowly and still had a lot to offer. Came to survive their rematch and little else.
Morales: On the slide for a while and still managed to win their first meeting.
Marquez - arguably won the first fight but very close, strong opinions he was robbed second time around. Still, you'd pick the three other famous Mexiocans to beat him in their primes.
Diaz - Please.
De La Hoya - De La Hoya was dead on his feet, even Roach says so.
Hatton - a great win, totally unexpected for me, I started to reconsider Pacquiao
Cotto - astonishing performance, full credit, deserves praise to be heaped on
If he beats Mayweather he's a modern legend and deserves a place among the greats.

But to suggest that's equivalent to beating the likes of Armstrong, Gavilan, LaMotta, Graziano is an insult to the American.

No I agree, I'm not wanting to compare Pacquiao with Sugar Ray Robinson. I was just trying to highlight to gav that in the same way he looks at the names on Sugar Ray Robinson's resume in ore, and then discredit's Pacquiao's opponents for various reasons. A fight fan in 50yrs time will also look at Pacquiao's resume in ore, see Barrera 2x, Morales 3x, Marquez 2x, Larios, De La Hoya, Hatton, Cotto, etc, etc,... And then discredit a future fighter who doesn't live up to the vast number of names on a past fighter's career (Pacquiao), without knowing the true history behind those fights.