Can Pacquiao catch Floyd?

They fight either side of a promotional and televisual divide: Pacquiao is affiliated with HBO and Bob Arum; Mayweather with Golden Boy and Showtime.

They rank alongside one another with many experts in the all time rankings - Mayweather having stolen a march on Pacquiao in the past year with easy wins over Guerrero and Alvarez while Pacquiao suffered a shocking loss to nemesis Marquez in a fight he looked poised to win via stoppage himself.

With neither likely to threaten the all time 15 (for many experts they rank outside the top 20) and with their chances of meeting as remote as ever, can Pacquiao catch Floyd in the home straight with the competition he has available to him (Rios, Alvarado, Marquez, Provodnikov, Bradley)? Mayweather seems likely to take a gimme against Amir Khan before facing Danny Garcia -- fights he'll be an overwhelming favourite to win.

Can Pacquiao close the gap - pip Mayweather even - with a series of blood and thunder victories?

He could do yes, but I don't think he will.

For Manny to overtake Floyd he will have to beat the names you've mentioned is massively impressive fashion, with Mayweather struggling in his. With Floyd poised to take some easy fights (who can blame him really, his fans would be happy if he beat up a 12 year old) he will not struggle one little bit.

I have a feeling he'll knock Rios cold -- setting up revenge fights with Bradley or Marquez (even though he already beat Bradley in the eyes of most fair-minded judges).

That would be a great finish (if he could top them).

After Khan and Garcia who else is there for Floyd? Thurman? Alexander?

Pacquiao has the better side of the draw.

No. Rios is pants. That win (which Pacman WILL get) will mean absolutely nothing.

He lost to bradley and jmm.

Floyd already beat jmm handily. I think he fights Khan, Garcia then Bradley.

Floyd, for me, is a top 5 ATG. Pacquaio top 20.

Do you really think Bradley won?

Don't think Rios is any worse than Guerrero at 147, tbh.

mobilemaster8 wrote:No. Rios is pants. That win (which Pacman WILL get) will mean absolutely nothing.

He lost to bradley and jmm.

Floyd already beat jmm handily.  I think he fights Khan, Garcia then Bradley.  

Floyd, for me, is a top 5 ATG. Pacquaio top 20.

He lost to Bradley officially, however, the decision was largely derided.

I'm assuming you're rating Floyd on ability? In terms of greatness - top five all time is nonsensical.

Wins over Rios and one of Bradley/Marquez would eclipse Khan/Garcia.

Not the same old nonsense again, Pacquiao's only chance of overtaking Mayweather is to beat him.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Not the same old nonsense again, Pacquiao's only chance of overtaking Mayweather is to beat him.

In your opinion.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Not the same old nonsense again, Pacquiao's only chance of overtaking Mayweather is to beat him.

Really? There's barely a slither between them.

Pacquiao still has the better wins.

He does marginally but he has also lost to two of the guys his best wins are against. As time goes by the gap between them is widening all the time.

Rios is going to take a hammering in this fight and I still think Floyd vs Pacquiao is a good fight.

Rios has been selected to walk onto Pacquiao's bombs. This could be another startling knockout.

Guerrero was a multi weight world champ who had to face some tough tests to get to Floyd (like Berto and Aydin). Rios got hammered in the grid by alvarado and lost. He also "lost" to Abril but gets a fight with Pacquiao (standard Taylor made to look good....something Bob Arum even confirmed).

So yeh, Guerrero is a better win than Rios.

D.Garcia is a better fight as is Khan. As is Bradley (who Manny lost against). Even a JMM rematch would be ok for Floyd......although that's a mismatch after we saw what happened in their fight.

Manny struggled with him 4 times and got sparked.

Im sorry, but im a fan of both fighters. But to even compare their respective greatness is a complete joke.

Floyd is a lot higher than pacquiao im terms of almost everything.

I think Mayweather will end up facing Pacquaio and beating him. A few years ago Pacquaio looked really dangerous and the fight would have been red hot but now Pacquaio looks on the way out. I think Mayweather will do what he did with Cotto and Mosley and fight a less dangerous version when he can demand more money.

mobilemaster8 wrote:Guerrero was a multi weight world champ who had to face some tough tests to get to Floyd (like Berto and Aydin). Rios got hammered in the grid by alvarado and lost. He also "lost" to Abril but gets a fight with Pacquiao (standard Taylor made to look good....something Bob Arum even confirmed).

So yeh, Guerrero is a better win than Rios.

D.Garcia is a better fight as is Khan. As is Bradley (who Manny lost against). Even a JMM rematch would be ok for Floyd......although that's a mismatch after we saw what happened in their fight.

Manny struggled with him 4 times and got sparked.

Im sorry, but im a fan of both fighters. But to even compare their respective greatness is a complete joke.

Floyd is a lot higher than pacquiao im terms of almost everything.

Guerrero hasn't done squat at welterweight. Berto a tough test? Overrated  media creation.

Pacquiao has the greater wins (5-1-1 against Barrera, Morales and Marquez) at lightweight and below. Records comparable after that.

You have to factor in those two official losses to Morales and Marquez as well as the struggles he had in general with Marquez. I have no qualms about the wins over Barrera but Morales was well on the slide by the time he beat him, their first fight was his last big hurrah. One struggle against Castillo which was swiftly put right is not as damaging as the Morales and Marquez fights.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:You have to factor in those two official losses to Morales and Marquez as well as the struggles he had in general with Marquez. I have no qualms about the wins over Barrera but Morales was well on the slide by the time he beat him, their first fight was his last big hurrah. One struggle against Castillo which was swiftly put right is not as damaging as the Morales and Marquez fights.

Think you're looking at things in the wrong way. Pacquiao deserves credit for getting in with three other great fighters. Marquez four times, Morales thrice and Barrera twice. He lost the first Morales fight after being hindered by a bad cut but avenged it twice. Fighting other greats at or near their best is challenging and Pacquiao proved himself in overcoming those challenges.

Floyd's unbeaten record is impressive but that doesn't automatically seperate him from Manny. Hopkins and Jones are way ahead of Calzaghe, for example.

So Manny lost a couple? So what? Where's the shame in losing to Morales and Marquez? He still went 4-2-1 against them.

I wonder if posters are rating Floyd on being the best fighter they've seen - which is a different matter to ranking him on achievements and challenges overcome.

I'm looking at things from the point of view that there's more criteria to consider than just the win column, he deserves credit for fighting the mexican credit but you can't dismiss his mixed results. I don't buy any of the excuses for the Morales lost, he was beaten by the better man on the night simple as that, nobody takes into account Mayweathers torn rotator cuff against Castillo.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I'm looking at things from the point of view that there's more criteria to consider than just the win column, he deserves credit for fighting the mexican credit but you can't dismiss his mixed results. I don't buy any of the excuses for the Morales lost, he was beaten by the better man on the night simple as that, nobody takes into account Mayweathers torn rotator cuff against Castillo.

He was outpointed but it was a close fight (7 rounds to 5 on all three cards). Pacquiao proved himself in the rematches - blowing Erik away.

Mayweather just doesn't have the same calibre of wins against great fighters at or close to their best. His best work came at lightweight and below.

You can't credit boxers for fights they ultimately lose and in the rematches Morales had regressed quite a lot from the first fight by which time he was already past his best. I've said it before but Pacquiao has Barrera over Mayweather but nothing else, Marquez had the better of him over the four fights even if the official scorecards don't agree. Hernandez, Coralles, Castillo, Manfredy and Chavez are all world class wins, not at the level of Barrera but not a million miles away. Beyond that he has a better body of very good wins and a lot more of them, on talent and overall record Mayweather is a good distance ahead.

I brought up Len Morrow in this discussion before, he has great wins over Moore and Bivins but also lost to the pair as well as lesser opponents, it's not all about the W column. Mayweather has gaps in his record most notably Tzuyu, Pacquiao and a younger Cotto but his record as it is, is still brilliant. I assume you'd have Moore above him, a boxer with unrivaled longevity but also a boxer who fell short against the very best.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:You can't credit boxers for fights they ultimately lose and in the rematches Morales had regressed quite a lot from the first fight by which time he was already past his best. I've said it before but Pacquiao has Barrera over Mayweather but nothing else, Marquez had the better of him over the four fights even if the official scorecards don't agree. Hernandez, Coralles, Castillo, Manfredy and Chavez are all world class wins, not at the level of Barrera but not a million miles away. Beyond that he has a better body of very good wins and a lot more of them, on talent and overall record Mayweather is a good distance ahead.

I brought up Len Morrow in this discussion before, he has great wins over Moore and Bivins but also lost to the pair as well as lesser opponents, it's not all about the W column. Mayweather has gaps in his record most notably Tzuyu, Pacquiao and a younger Cotto but his record as it is, is still brilliant. I assume you'd have Moore above him, a boxer with unrivaled longevity but also a boxer who fell short against the very best.

Of course you can credit fighters for fights they lose: losing 115-113 to Morales in a great fight is commendable. As is the fact he put the record straight (and let's not kid ourselves Morales was shot -- if you're crediting Floyd for Hernandez then you have to credit Manny for Morales).

Manfredy and Chavez are no more impressive than Diaz or Sasakul or Solis - Pacquiao had a HOF career before he even fought what was left of De la Hoya.

Floyd's best work came at junior lightweight -- he's arguably the best of all time at that weight. He also has the Castillo wins (a close, contentious decision followed by another close win). Pacquiao outstrips all of that with his lower weight round robin against Barrera, Morales and Marquez. 5-1-1 against great champions at or around their best. The Marquez wins are no more contentious than Floyd's victories over Castillo. Why would you credit Floyd but not Manny if you're a fan of both? Castillo, too, is a level below his three compatriots.

Post lightweight their careers are much of a muchness.

The fact they didn't face one another (and we'll never know why - nor should we care) leaves them missing a signature win at the higher weights. It hurts both and keeps them behind modern greats such as Duran, Leonard, Whitaker and possibly even Jones.

And yes, Moore ranks above Mayweather.

185-23-10 (131)

10-7-1 against Charlie Burley, Eddie Booker, Jack Chase, Lloyd Marshall, Jimmy Bivins, and Ezzard Charles is phenomenal. Holman Williams, Bob Satterfield, Harold Johnson, Joey Maxim -- another world.

Out of interest, do you credit Bradley for his win over Manny haz? If you are giving Pacman a winning record over JMM, you have to accept his controversial losses in the same light I guess. Or do you think he is shot and we should not concentrate on his recent performances (like RJJ)?

Moore was one of the best fighters in history. Im not into making lists but I would rate him up among the best. Definately greater than Mayweather. People go on now about Hopkins being great and lasting around but Moore was doing that in over 200 fights against some of the most underrated, toughest boxers in history. He was denied real opportunities until very late in his career. Put Moore around now with the middleweights and light heavyweights of the last decade only fighting a couple of times a year and he could easily be 50 or 60 with no losses.

joeyjojo618 wrote:Out of interest, do you credit Bradley for his win over Manny haz? If you are giving Pacman a winning record over JMM, you have to accept his controversial losses in the same light I guess. Or do you think he is shot and we should not concentrate on his recent performances (like RJJ)?

I think it's different in that not one sane person scored the fight for Bradley whereas most people were split in the Marquez fights (much like Floyd-Castillo). I thought the third fight was a clear win for Marquez, however, plenty scored for Pac.

catchweight wrote:Moore was one of the best fighters in history. Im not into making lists but I would rate him up among the best. Definately greater than Mayweather. People go on now about Hopkins being great and lasting around but Moore was doing that in over 200 fights against some of the most underrated, toughest boxers in history. He was denied real opportunities until very late in his career. Put Moore around now with the middleweights and light heavyweights of the last decade only fighting a couple of times a year and he could easily be 50 or 60 with no losses.

Agreed - conditioning techniques, better surgical procedures and -- in some cases -- PEDs all help to prolong careers these days.

Moore was horribly avoided - he didn't have the luxury of picking his own opponents (carefully built up by the TV network hoping to sell the fight) either -- at least before becoming champion.

Different sport.

Haz stop being so biased for a second, there is absolutely no way Moore ranks higher than Mayweather. Against the very best in Charles and Burley he lost four out of four, that shows me his level. He's a cult figure with very impressive longevity but someone of the very top tier would need to have at least a solitary win against the best he'd faced.

The Castillo/Marquez thing is simple, the first fight against both was a borderline robbery. The difference being Mayweather comfortably winning the rematch something Pacquiao never achieved in 3 more attempts.

Mayweather top ten, Pacquiao top 25.

Don't think you can have them that far apart Hammer. They both have a massive blot on their records and for that reason I can't put either in the top 10. I don't place a massive amount of emphasis on p4p lists, but both around the 20 mark is reasonable. Floyd higher at the moment on talent, rather than record.

There's blots on every record, you don't lose anything by not taking a fight, you just don't reap the rewards of a win.

I don't understand how anyone would have Floyd outside of an ATG top 10. Perhaps not top 5 unless he has 4/5 top top fights but right now, its difficult to make an argument for him not to grace most top 10's

If a fighter blatantly ducks a fight it should be held against them. Not testing yourself against the best is a big blot which needs to be taken into account.

I agree with you Hammersmith, its been a long time but I dont remember anything really controversial about Floyd Castillo II. I think Mayweather ticked that box. Marquez will always have Mannys number though. No shame in that, JMM is also a great fighter, but I personally hold that against Pacman in these imaginary (and pretty arbitrary) P4P lists.

I was thinking how Floyd would do against the Fab 4 if he were around at the time.

I guess the first issue is getting him in the ring, but let's assume that's a given. How does he fair?

Hagler - loses this one, and by stoppage. His defence, although sublime would be no good against such a big man.

Hearns - he gets obliterated in this one. Doesn't have enough power to deter Hearns and either loses every round or gets knocked out trying to win.

SRL - out worked and loses a close (ish) fight.

Duran - only one he has a shout in. I think Duran at his absolute peak beats Floyd hear, although I used to lean the other way.

Think Manny loses to them all as well. I just don't see how we can have a fighter in the top 10 who if he was around in another era would probably be ranked 5 out of 5.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Haz stop being so biased for a second, there is absolutely no way Moore ranks higher than Mayweather. Against the very best in Charles and Burley he lost four out of four, that shows me his level. He's a cult figure with very impressive longevity but someone of the very top tier would need to have at least a solitary win against the best he'd faced.

The Castillo/Marquez thing is simple, the first fight against both was a borderline robbery. The difference being Mayweather comfortably winning the rematch something Pacquiao never achieved in 3 more attempts.

Mayweather top ten, Pacquiao top 25.

Explain how I'm being biased?

Moore very definitely ranks higher than Floyd.

Mayweather's return win was as close to a 7-5 score as you get -- the second Pacquiao-Marquez match wasn't any different. Pacquiao pulled out a knockdown to edge home.

Floyd is a fair bit smaller than Hagler, Hearns and SRL, I dont think its a fair comparison. He is at the end of his career and is not a big WW.

JabMachineMK2 wrote:I don't understand how anyone would have Floyd outside of an ATG top 10. Perhaps not top 5 unless he has 4/5 top top fights but right now, its difficult to make an argument for him not to grace most top 10's

He doesn't have the fights or level of opposition to rate that highly. He's beaten good opposition consistently yet his resume is missing the types of challenges the Leonards and Whitakers took on (and that's just from the modern era).

Again -- I'm wondering whether we're talking at cross purposes here. Are posters rating Floyd as a top five-ten fighter based on the eyeball test -- the fact he looks as good as anyone from history?

Rating fighters all time comes down to records, opposition and challenges overcome -- factors that let Floyd down.

The eyeball test is used for every fighter, from Jofre to Leonard to Whitaker to even middleweight Robinson. Robinson has a fabulous record but is it any better than Grebs, Armstrong or Charles? I would say no but from the small clips we have of him near his prime he looks a better fighter and as with most old timers we are swayed somewhat by what is written about them.

Anyone who has Moore higher is either being biased against Mayweather or giving Moore too much credit for what is a patchy record.

hazharrison wrote:

JabMachineMK2 wrote:I don't understand how anyone would have Floyd outside of an ATG top 10. Perhaps not top 5 unless he has 4/5 top top fights but right now, its difficult to make an argument for him not to grace most top 10's

He doesn't have the fights or level of opposition to rate that highly. He's beaten good opposition consistently yet his resume is missing the types of challenges the Leonards and Whitakers took on (and that's just from the modern era).

Haz forgive me if I am doing you a disservice here but the last time we did our top tens did you not have Jack Johnson in there? If so how does he fulfill your criteria of taking on the toughest challengers, or are we to believe Battling Jim Johnson was a tougher nights work than Sam Langford.

Is Johnson not given credit for beating Langford, Jeanette and McVey?

Rowley will be able to confirm this but he didn't face any of them while they were at their absolute bests when he was champion, when there was no pressure on him he fought them but when it mattered he avoided them like the plague. You could use the colour line as an excuse but his fight with Jim Johnson makes a mockery of that, he didn't face them because they could have beaten him simple as that.

He is but in beating Langford he beat a green kid with virtually no experience of fighting at heavyweight. Accepted pretty much across the board that Sam was a whole different animal in 1910 than he was in 1906. There was a preiod, pre title where Jack was willing to face the best. However once the belt was safely round his waist he showed no such willingness.

Giving Jack praise for this whilst ignoring what he did as champion is akin to giving Floyd praise for his opposition up to lightweight and believing his actions there prohibit any criticism of his choices post that time, a view that would be resolutely shouted down was it to be made.

I am no Floyd apologist but I genuinely struggle to see how anyone can mark down Floyd predominently on the basis of him not facing the best available opposition but then have Johnson in their top ten, just smacks of double standards to me.

Rowley wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

JabMachineMK2 wrote:I don't understand how anyone would have Floyd outside of an ATG top 10. Perhaps not top 5 unless he has 4/5 top top fights but right now, its difficult to make an argument for him not to grace most top 10's

He doesn't have the fights or level of opposition to rate that highly. He's beaten good opposition consistently yet his resume is missing the types of challenges the Leonards and Whitakers took on (and that's just from the modern era).

Haz forgive me if I am doing you a disservice here but the last time we did our top tens did you not have Jack Johnson in there? If so how does he fulfill your criteria of taking on the toughest challengers, or are we to believe Battling Jim Johnson was a tougher nights work than Sam Langford.

Yeah, did it on the back of a fag packet real quick and after you'd pointed that out to me I realised I needed to do more homework on Papa Jack. See I'm willing to change!!!

Hammersmith harrier wrote:The eyeball test is used for every fighter, from Jofre to Leonard to Whitaker to even middleweight Robinson. Robinson has a fabulous record but is it any better than Grebs, Armstrong or Charles? I would say no but from the small clips we have of him near his prime he looks a better fighter and as with most old timers we are swayed somewhat by what is written about them.

Anyone who has Moore higher is either being biased against Mayweather or giving Moore too much credit for what is a patchy record.

Not when ranking them in terms of greatness. Otherwise Roy Jones would be top.

I think you're doing Moore a great disservice. Who has Floyd beaten that can trump Holman Williams for one?

You could also ask why Robinson was willing to step up to face Maxim but not Moore and why he didn't face Burley prior to winning the title. Or why he was willing to fight LaMotta at middleweight in 42 and a shot Aaron Wade in 50 but didn't fancy any of the BMR in the interim. Could it possibly be that like everyone else he followed the path of least resistance?

hazharrison wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:The eyeball test is used for every fighter, from Jofre to Leonard to Whitaker to even middleweight Robinson. Robinson has a fabulous record but is it any better than Grebs, Armstrong or Charles? I would say no but from the small clips we have of him near his prime he looks a better fighter and as with most old timers we are swayed somewhat by what is written about them.

Anyone who has Moore higher is either being biased against Mayweather or giving Moore too much credit for what is a patchy record.

Not when ranking them in terms of greatness. Otherwise Roy Jones would be top.

I think you're doing Moore a great disservice. Who has Floyd beaten that can trump Holman Williams for one?

What are your views on Jofre then Haz, a boxer with a fairly average record but a boxer the IBRO rate as the 15th greatest of all time, he is rated on the eyeball test alone.

It's not all about wins Haz, Moore had his highs but he also had his lows, he outlasted the BMR but Charles, Burley and Booker all had the better of him, of the top of my head think he's 1-6 against the trio. He excelled against the tier below the absolute best but against the cream he more often than not lost, he only beat Bivins for instance when he started his post war slump. When Bivins was in his pomp he dealt with Moore with ease.