606 Scorecards: Pacquaio vs. Marquez.

First topic message reminder :

This is my last Pacquaio vs. Marquez thread of the day, but I thought it'd be nice to evaluate all of the scorecards ON THE NIGHT of (in my opinion) the worst example of judging since Holyfield vs. Lewis.

Here's scorecards of some of the most respected Boxing Journalists:

Spoiler:

As for us, what were your scorecards?

School Project: 117 - 112 Marquez.

I agree that they are different. Against Pac, Marquez was coutering at the first opportunity to try and stop Manny getting any flurries off and getting into a rhythm. Mayweather would let Pacquiao throw combinations at him, until he saw the perfect time to counter. I still think there are enough similarities for the comparison to be relevant though.

Yes, it's definitely relevant. Not the nail in the coffin that it has been made out to be in some places though.

ortiz came in as a SMW...no comparison between him and pac

Raheem beat Morales - does Raheem have a better legacy than Morales?

Junior Jones beat Barrera - does that mean Jones was Barrera's "level"?

Jukebox - you say that Singsurat is Manny's "level" - so Hopkins is Taylor's "level"? Or RJJ is at Tarver's "level"? Or SRR was at Turpin's "level?"

Since when has the "0" mattered so much?

oxring wrote:Compared with this - he's more cut against Pacquiao - the same as in his other fights at 140.

Unless we're trying to suggest that Hatton was as effective at 147 as 140 - and as cut/ripped/shredded at 147 as 140 etc. Cos that's bull.

Spoiler:

-----------------------------------------------------
Really Jukebox? The talk is over? Sure - Manny isn't as effective as Floyd at WW - but given that a couple of years ago he was fightin at 130 - is that really surprising?

One of the losses to "bums" was to Singsurat - a good flyweight champion - where he moved up in weight. Hopkins has a loss to a bum as well - doubtless he's not great either.

Pacquiao stopped Morales - someting Maidana couldn't do. That same "shot" Morales has recently won a title at 140. So he's probably not as shot as was originally claimed.

He looks drained there in all honesty.

John Bloody Wayne wrote:Is Mayweather clearly superior because Manny had a tough time against a counter puncher whom Mayweather shutout?

Because Mayweather had a tough time against the pressure fighting of Castillo, remember?

In my opinion, rematches favour the boxer over the fighter. That's disputable and not always the case but it's the way I see it. Now when Manny last fought Marquez he weighed in at 143 and Marquez at 142. They were at a catchweight (that favoured Marquez) of 144. Mayweather v Marquez was also at a catchweight of 144. Mayweather came in at 146. Lets not pretend the cards weren't stacked in Mayweather's favour there.

Mayweather needed two goes at Castillo to figure him out and beat him decisively. What can Castillo do offensively that Pacquiao can't?

Also, why do the times when a razor close Marquez victory went the other way get mentioned, but not the time an admitted score card mess up turned a Pacquiao victory into a draw?

Floyd is clearly superior because he just is. His A game is far better that Pac's A game. I have always believed it would be a total shutout or late KO for Floyd. I believe he will want to emphasise his superiority much in the same way he took apart Coralles.

Floyd was injured against Castillo. He gave him an immediate rematch to set the record straight.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Against the odds would be his win over Corrales I would suspect a win far better than Margarito but slightly below Cotto.

Slightly perplexed that anyone can try and suggest that Pacquiao, Hopkins and Barrera are not great fighters though.

No need to be perplexed. Take my word for it. They're not. Hopkins is good. Pac is better. MAB is also good. They all fall short of the elite ATG status. Anyone who can get outboxed twice by Taylor is not great. Totally schooled by RJJ which is no great shame seeing that RJJ is a great. People are basing his greatness due to his age. Would we be so amazed is he beat Pascal wif he were 25? Or Pavlik . Come on. Be rational and not emotional.

azania wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Against the odds would be his win over Corrales I would suspect a win far better than Margarito but slightly below Cotto.

Slightly perplexed that anyone can try and suggest that Pacquiao, Hopkins and Barrera are not great fighters though.

No need to be perplexed. Take my word for it. They're not. Hopkins is good. Pac is better. MAB is also good. They all fall short of the elite ATG status. Anyone who can get outboxed twice by Taylor is not great. Totally schooled by RJJ which is no great shame seeing that RJJ is a great. People are basing his greatness due to his age. Would we be so amazed is he beat Pascal wif he were 25? Or Pavlik . Come on. Be rational and not emotional.

Don't really need to say anything. That is so contratarian it is untrue. Not only does it go against received wisdom and the majority view - it means that its impossible to achieve greatness if you lose.

Believing this, therefore - I have now removed Ali from my all time list of great HWs after he was comprehensively outboxed by Norton and jobbed him twice.

Furthermore, I no longer accept that RJJ is any good after being splattered and dominated by Tarver.

There are only a couple of good fighters in history - Floyd and Rocky being the best of the best.

oxring wrote:

azania wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Against the odds would be his win over Corrales I would suspect a win far better than Margarito but slightly below Cotto.

Slightly perplexed that anyone can try and suggest that Pacquiao, Hopkins and Barrera are not great fighters though.

No need to be perplexed. Take my word for it. They're not. Hopkins is good. Pac is better. MAB is also good. They all fall short of the elite ATG status. Anyone who can get outboxed twice by Taylor is not great. Totally schooled by RJJ which is no great shame seeing that RJJ is a great. People are basing his greatness due to his age. Would we be so amazed is he beat Pascal wif he were 25? Or Pavlik . Come on. Be rational and not emotional.

Don't really need to say anything. That is so contratarian it is untrue. Not only does it go against received wisdom and the majority view - it means that its impossible to achieve greatness if you lose.

Believing this, therefore - I have now removed Ali from my all time list of great HWs after he was comprehensively outboxed by Norton and jobbed him twice.

Furthermore, I no longer accept that RJJ is any good after being splattered and dominated by Tarver.

There are only a couple of good fighters in history - Floyd and Rocky being the best of the best.

Jermaine Taylor beat him twice without dispute. Mecardo (spelling) drew with him. Lost to Calzaghe also. What he has achieved is incredible without doubt. But to rank him higher than Hagler, RJJ, that Argie nutter, Dick Tiger, and others is stretching things a little.

Oh and Ali avenged his defeat against Norton twice

RJJ was past if when he lost to Tarver. At his peak he was unbeatable and probably the best boxer ever according to McCallum. You must have forgot!!!!!!

azania wrote:

oxring wrote:

azania wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Against the odds would be his win over Corrales I would suspect a win far better than Margarito but slightly below Cotto.

Slightly perplexed that anyone can try and suggest that Pacquiao, Hopkins and Barrera are not great fighters though.

No need to be perplexed. Take my word for it. They're not. Hopkins is good. Pac is better. MAB is also good. They all fall short of the elite ATG status. Anyone who can get outboxed twice by Taylor is not great. Totally schooled by RJJ which is no great shame seeing that RJJ is a great. People are basing his greatness due to his age. Would we be so amazed is he beat Pascal wif he were 25? Or Pavlik . Come on. Be rational and not emotional.

Don't really need to say anything. That is so contratarian it is untrue. Not only does it go against received wisdom and the majority view - it means that its impossible to achieve greatness if you lose.

Believing this, therefore - I have now removed Ali from my all time list of great HWs after he was comprehensively outboxed by Norton and jobbed him twice.

Furthermore, I no longer accept that RJJ is any good after being splattered and dominated by Tarver.

There are only a couple of good fighters in history - Floyd and Rocky being the best of the best.

Jermaine Taylor beat him twice without dispute. Mecardo (spelling) drew with him. Lost to Calzaghe also. What he has achieved is incredible without doubt. But to rank him higher than Hagler, RJJ, that Argie nutter, Dick Tiger, and others is stretching things a little.

Oh and Ali avenged his defeat against Norton twice

RJJ was past if when he lost to Tarver. At his peak he was unbeatable and probably the best boxer ever according to McCallum. You must have forgot!!!!!!

He tried to go hard but went home...

That was awful.

Anyway - too easy to say "peak was unbeatable". In that case - Manny didn't peak until Diaz and has been off since Margarito.

Nah - Ali jobbed Norton both times - especially Norton 3. Never could deal with someone who could defend and counter a jab. He also lost to the only peak Frazier he ever fought. Clearly found out and that's his level...

Hopkins not great. Pacquiao not great. Barrera not great. I'm not sure you are convincing many. We could have a seperate debate on their greatness and poll the board - I'd be intrigued to see whether the rest of the world are thinking as you - I doubt it.

oxring wrote:

azania wrote:

oxring wrote:

azania wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Against the odds would be his win over Corrales I would suspect a win far better than Margarito but slightly below Cotto.

Slightly perplexed that anyone can try and suggest that Pacquiao, Hopkins and Barrera are not great fighters though.

No need to be perplexed. Take my word for it. They're not. Hopkins is good. Pac is better. MAB is also good. They all fall short of the elite ATG status. Anyone who can get outboxed twice by Taylor is not great. Totally schooled by RJJ which is no great shame seeing that RJJ is a great. People are basing his greatness due to his age. Would we be so amazed is he beat Pascal wif he were 25? Or Pavlik . Come on. Be rational and not emotional.

Don't really need to say anything. That is so contratarian it is untrue. Not only does it go against received wisdom and the majority view - it means that its impossible to achieve greatness if you lose.

Believing this, therefore - I have now removed Ali from my all time list of great HWs after he was comprehensively outboxed by Norton and jobbed him twice.

Furthermore, I no longer accept that RJJ is any good after being splattered and dominated by Tarver.

There are only a couple of good fighters in history - Floyd and Rocky being the best of the best.

Jermaine Taylor beat him twice without dispute. Mecardo (spelling) drew with him. Lost to Calzaghe also. What he has achieved is incredible without doubt. But to rank him higher than Hagler, RJJ, that Argie nutter, Dick Tiger, and others is stretching things a little.

Oh and Ali avenged his defeat against Norton twice

RJJ was past if when he lost to Tarver. At his peak he was unbeatable and probably the best boxer ever according to McCallum. You must have forgot!!!!!!

He tried to go hard but went home...

That was awful.

Anyway - too easy to say "peak was unbeatable". In that case - Manny didn't peak until Diaz and has been off since Margarito.

Nah - Ali jobbed Norton both times - especially Norton 3. Never could deal with someone who could defend and counter a jab. He also lost to the only peak Frazier he ever fought. Clearly found out and that's his level...

Hopkins not great. Pacquiao not great. Barrera not great. I'm not sure you are convincing many. We could have a seperate debate on their greatness and poll the board - I'd be intrigued to see whether the rest of the world are thinking as you - I doubt it.

Oxy old bean, you missed me didn't you? I mean who else can get you in such a tizz?

Please define what you mean by great. I'm talking top 50 here and non of the above are in there in my opinon. Pac may scrape in due to his weight adventures. Hop will over in the 50-75 range. MAB? Not a chance.

I had Ali winning 2 of the 3 fights. The 3rd was close but ALi won more rounds. Ali lost to a peak Frazier who beat a not peak Ali. Frazier wouldn't have landed a glove on the 1967 version of Ali. You know that, I know that even Lady Gaga knows that. Strewth you are contrary and argumentative.

There's a lot to be said about the fact that this 'great' Pacquiao has been making mincemeat of opponents since David Diaz at 135lbs yet couldn't even put Marquez down this time.
Pacquiao who knocked Cotto down what-three or four times?
Pacquiao who demolished Hatton at his 'best' weight.
Pacquiao who knocked down the 'granite-chinned' Mosley-a guy who'd never been dropped by an opponent smaller than himself.
Pacquiao who had a large welterweight in Clottey afraid to open up.
Pacquiao who turned Margarito's face into a bloody, broken mess.

Yet against Marquez he's barely come close to stopping him over three fights. In their latest encounter Pacquiao's aggression flattered to deceive. He had little success in landing hard, flush shots and was in turned countered solidly and repeatedly.

I'm not saying Pacquiao isn't great at what he does well, but when he's unable to do that he looks a little lost. I think that's what separates the great from the very, very, very good.

BALTIMORA wrote:There's a lot to be said about the fact that this 'great' Pacquiao has been making mincemeat of opponents since David Diaz at 135lbs yet couldn't even put Marquez down this time.
Pacquiao who knocked Cotto down what-three or four times?
Pacquiao who demolished Hatton at his 'best' weight.
Pacquiao who knocked down the 'granite-chinned' Mosley-a guy who'd never been dropped by an opponent smaller than himself.
Pacquiao who had a large welterweight in Clottey afraid to open up.
Pacquiao who turned Margarito's face into a bloody, broken mess.

Yet against Marquez he's barely come close to stopping him over three fights. In their latest encounter Pacquiao's aggression flattered to deceive. He had little success in landing hard, flush shots and was in turned countered solidly and repeatedly.

I'm not saying Pacquiao isn't great at what he does well, but when he's unable to do that he looks a little lost. I think that's what separates the great from the very, very, very good.

What has changed? Different 'nutrition' perhaps?

Could be the nutrition, yeah. He's undoubtedly great at fighting but is he a boxing great? I can certainly see both arguments.

Have missed anyone who can present me with arguments like yours az.

Re: greatness.

Here's the 606 top 30:



1) Daniel Mendoza, 2) The Marquess of Queensberry, 3) John L Sullivan 4) Bob Fitzsimmons 5) Sam Langford 6) Jack Johnson 7) Benny Leonard 8) Joe Gans 9) Ray Arcel 10) Harry Greb 11) Mickey Walker 12) Gene Tunney 13) Jack Dempsey 14) Henry Armstrong 15) Joe Louis 16) Sugar Ray Robinson 17) Ezzard Charles 18) Archie Moore 19) Willie Pep 20) Sandy Saddler 21) Eder Jofre 22) Muhammad Ali 23) Alexis Arguello 24) Roberto Duran 25) Carlos Monzon 26) Sugar Ray Leonard 27) Marvin Hagler) 28) Michael Spinks 29) Pernell Whitaker 30) Julio Cesar Chavez 31) Jimmy Wilde

You'll notice 2 fighters who aren't in there - and aren't particularly close to getting in yet either.

Mayweather a top 20 of all time? At the expense of who exactly?
--------------------------
If we look at today's generation - who will go down as having the greater legacy?

Both greats of their era - but I will side with the boxing writers of america - and every other body that awarded Manny fighter of the decade - ie fighter of the current generation.

Oh - and in red - please make sure that nothing gets libellous as we don't want to be sued

Your top 10 is quite frankly ridiculous. Half these guys simply stood there to be hit. It was like watching street-fighter or some other video game with 2 tweenagers playing. They just stood there duking it out. If someone ducked he'd be called a coward. But that's another thread.

Mayweather top 20 at the expense of any of your top 10. Mendoza? Give me a break. Mayweather would beat him. Forget that. Funso Banjo would beat him. Even Frazier in his currect state would last the distance.

Ali at 23? Are you on mushrooms or something?

Have you seen some of these guys hit a speedbag? Its hilarious. Pure comedy gold. I've seen footage of Jackson and Sharkey (I thik). Good god. Its like watching another sport. No wonder they called prizefighting. It wasn't boxing as we know it. Dont tell me about the number of HoF they fought. Anyone in those times who laced them up was probably a HoFer (assuming they know which hands to put the gloves it). These mofo's took whiskey between rounds to toughen them up.

I'm talking about skills here. They didn't possess what we now know as rudimentary boxing skills.

Manny probably deserved foghter of the decade. His achievements on paper appears phenominal which they are. Good luck to him. Still isn't a great. Lost 2-3 times against JMM.

Come come Oxy. Would I say anything libellous

Would you ever az.

Fancy posting that post, word for word on the main board in a couple of days if things go quiet? That would stimulate some debate.

I still can't see why Ali - who lost 2-3 times against Norton gets let off for that - but Manny - who may have lost once against Marquez doesn't...

We're going in circles - I'm gonna call it a night - I should be working.

Rhonanai chief! (that does mean good night, right?)

sugar ray robinson is no longer my number one ATG. i am now going on azanias way of judging greatness any guy beaten ay turpin and KO d by la motta isnt worthy.

Rhonanai nkosi.

AlexHuckerby wrote:sugar ray robinson is no longer my number one ATG. i am now going on azanias way of judging greatness any guy beaten ay turpin and KO d by la motta isnt worthy.

Hop on board. But as you should know, SRR beat LaMotta 5 times and took out Turpin. Plus SRR was better at WW. Base his achievements at that weight. He wasn't the nest MW ever. Hagler and Monzon would have beaten him at MW and RJJ would have handed him his rear end.

AlexHuckerby wrote:sugar ray robinson is no longer my number one ATG. i am now going on azanias way of judging greatness any guy beaten ay turpin and KO d by la motta isnt worthy.

Lamotta didn't KO Robinson.

BALTIMORA wrote:

AlexHuckerby wrote:sugar ray robinson is no longer my number one ATG. i am now going on azanias way of judging greatness any guy beaten ay turpin and KO d by la motta isnt worthy.

Lamotta didn't KO Robinson.

my mistake.

but looking at robinsons WW record you can say he was better at WW fact is there isnt a real definite answer to that... theres no footage and there isnt any particularly standout wins there pacs win over cotto (though i know you will cry weight stips) is a more standout win than anything on robinsons WW record really.

AlexHuckerby wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:

AlexHuckerby wrote:sugar ray robinson is no longer my number one ATG. i am now going on azanias way of judging greatness any guy beaten ay turpin and KO d by la motta isnt worthy.

Lamotta didn't KO Robinson.

my mistake.

but looking at robinsons WW record you can say he was better at WW fact is there isnt a real definite answer to that... theres no footage and there isnt any particularly standout wins there pacs win over cotto (though i know you will cry weight stips) is a more standout win than anything on robinsons WW record really.

Henry Armstrong.

Moreover SRR was a WW fighting MW. Calling him a MW is inaccurate. He barely scraped past the LMW limit.

azania wrote:

AlexHuckerby wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:

AlexHuckerby wrote:sugar ray robinson is no longer my number one ATG. i am now going on azanias way of judging greatness any guy beaten ay turpin and KO d by la motta isnt worthy.

Lamotta didn't KO Robinson.

my mistake.

but looking at robinsons WW record you can say he was better at WW fact is there isnt a real definite answer to that... theres no footage and there isnt any particularly standout wins there pacs win over cotto (though i know you will cry weight stips) is a more standout win than anything on robinsons WW record really.

Henry Armstrong.

better name, but better win?

AlexHuckerby wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:

AlexHuckerby wrote:sugar ray robinson is no longer my number one ATG. i am now going on azanias way of judging greatness any guy beaten ay turpin and KO d by la motta isnt worthy.

Lamotta didn't KO Robinson.

my mistake.

but looking at robinsons WW record you can say he was better at WW fact is there isnt a real definite answer to that... theres no footage and there isnt any particularly standout wins there pacs win over cotto (though i know you will cry weight stips) is a more standout win than anything on robinsons WW record really.

I only cry weight stips because I'm not convinced they were imposed arbitrarily. I don't think Cotto at 147 would have had any different outcome to Cotto at 145, but it just takes the sheen off what was nonetheless a fantastic performance for Pacquiao.

Alex I assume you're joking here or your knowledge of the 1950's isn't as good as your modern day knowledge because Robinson beat a little known Welterweight called Kid Gavailan, his sheer dominance in that fight is what his other worldly stature is built upon. Beating a fellow top 5 Welterweight with such ease is head and shoulders above anything that Hopkins, Jones, Pacquiao, Mayweather, Barrera or any recent fighter can claim, Gavailan without that Robinson loss would have a very decent shout at being the divisions best ever fighter he was that darn good. On top of that you have wins over men the standard of Sammy Angott, Zivic, Zanelli, Wilson amongst a host of other top ranked Welterweights, a win over Cotto doesn't even come close to Angott let alone Gavailan.

As for Hopkins, Pacquiao and Barrera not being great well one can only laugh when Mayweather and Jones Jnr are being rated so highly instead of them.

oxring wrote:

azania wrote:

oxring wrote:

azania wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Against the odds would be his win over Corrales I would suspect a win far better than Margarito but slightly below Cotto.

Slightly perplexed that anyone can try and suggest that Pacquiao, Hopkins and Barrera are not great fighters though.

No need to be perplexed. Take my word for it. They're not. Hopkins is good. Pac is better. MAB is also good. They all fall short of the elite ATG status. Anyone who can get outboxed twice by Taylor is not great. Totally schooled by RJJ which is no great shame seeing that RJJ is a great. People are basing his greatness due to his age. Would we be so amazed is he beat Pascal wif he were 25? Or Pavlik . Come on. Be rational and not emotional.

Don't really need to say anything. That is so contratarian it is untrue. Not only does it go against received wisdom and the majority view - it means that its impossible to achieve greatness if you lose.

Believing this, therefore - I have now removed Ali from my all time list of great HWs after he was comprehensively outboxed by Norton and jobbed him twice.

Furthermore, I no longer accept that RJJ is any good after being splattered and dominated by Tarver.

There are only a couple of good fighters in history - Floyd and Rocky being the best of the best.

Jermaine Taylor beat him twice without dispute. Mecardo (spelling) drew with him. Lost to Calzaghe also. What he has achieved is incredible without doubt. But to rank him higher than Hagler, RJJ, that Argie nutter, Dick Tiger, and others is stretching things a little.

Oh and Ali avenged his defeat against Norton twice

RJJ was past if when he lost to Tarver. At his peak he was unbeatable and probably the best boxer ever according to McCallum. You must have forgot!!!!!!

He tried to go hard but went home...

That was awful.

Anyway - too easy to say "peak was unbeatable". In that case - Manny didn't peak until Diaz and has been off since Margarito.

Nah - Ali jobbed Norton both times - especially Norton 3. Never could deal with someone who could defend and counter a jab. He also lost to the only peak Frazier he ever fought. Clearly found out and that's his level...

Hopkins not great. Pacquiao not great. Barrera not great. I'm not sure you are convincing many. We could have a seperate debate on their greatness and poll the board - I'd be intrigued to see whether the rest of the world are thinking as you - I doubt it.

hopkins is great. taylor was with dispute anyway, hence the fact it wasnt a UD. i thought hopkins won both fights. probably the same idiots who think he saw so much from dawson after 2 rounds to quit, that saw him lose both fights.

I actually gave both fights to Taylor. He won the early rounds and its only from R10 that Hop took over. He needed a KO to win and didn't get it.

azania wrote:I actually gave both fights to Taylor. He won the early rounds and its only from R10 that Hop took over. He needed a KO to win and didn't get it.

its all perspective and everyone is welcome to their opinion. although i am slightly more perplexed to hear people give manny the nod against marquez in their third fight than i am with a lot of other contentious decisions

Lance wrote:

azania wrote:I actually gave both fights to Taylor. He won the early rounds and its only from R10 that Hop took over. He needed a KO to win and didn't get it.

its all perspective and everyone is welcome to their opinion. although i am slightly more perplexed to hear people give manny the nod against marquez in their third fight than i am with a lot of other contentious decisions

Cant comment on their 3rd fight as I havent seen it. But from what I've read, JMM got shafted again.

Was the clearest of the three fights to score, the first two I had split and couldn't argue with a win for either but the third was a clear Marquez win which combined with not getting the nod in either of the first two looks even worse. He simply shouldn't be 0-1-2 in their trilogy.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Alex I assume you're joking here or your knowledge of the 1950's isn't as good as your modern day knowledge because Robinson beat a little known Welterweight called Kid Gavailan, his sheer dominance in that fight is what his other worldly stature is built upon. Beating a fellow top 5 Welterweight with such ease is head and shoulders above anything that Hopkins, Jones, Pacquiao, Mayweather, Barrera or any recent fighter can claim, Gavailan without that Robinson loss would have a very decent shout at being the divisions best ever fighter he was that darn good. On top of that you have wins over men the standard of Sammy Angott, Zivic, Zanelli, Wilson amongst a host of other top ranked Welterweights, a win over Cotto doesn't even come close to Angott let alone Gavailan.

As for Hopkins, Pacquiao and Barrera not being great well one can only laugh when Mayweather and Jones Jnr are being rated so highly instead of them.

would argue that gavilan for starters is just outside the top ten welters though its debatable. would also say ive always thought SRR gets too much credit for the two wins though manner of victory must come into play i guess - would also say that gavilan hit his prime around 51/52 which is a while after the two SRR losses. also it has to be said that a former flyweight beating a fully fledged elite level fighter so comprehensively must come into play as making the win more impressive - nevertheless to be fair youve proved me wrong mate...

Sorry have to strongly disagree with you there Alex, Gavilan is without doubt a top ten Welterweight and would be at 5 on my rankings behind Robinson, Armstrong, Leonard and Ross. Beating Cotto is a great achievement for a former flyweight but I don't consider it to be a great stand alone win which beating Gavilan so comprehensively at Welterweight is. A man who can claim to hold wins over so many other great fighters such as Williams, Jack, Zanelli, Basilio, Bratton and Graham stands head and shoulders above Cotto, someone i'd back the kid to beat fairly easily ten times out of ten, not sure Pacquiao makes a dent in his year nor does he beat him.

horses for course but leonard robinson armstrong walcott ross all above him in top 5 but after that you could put him anywhere and i cant and i cant argue i guess

I quite like Barbados Joe, he incidentally is around 6/7 on my list but his actual top level Welterweight fights were too few to push him much higher, for all intents and purposes was clearly beaten by Sam Langford aside from which there's no fight that stand on the same level as many of Gavilans victims.

like i say horses for courses and in honesty my top ten would change on what day of the week it is.

fair enough mate, this thread seems to have been well and truly derailed now

just a tad haha forgot the original topic was pac and marquez.