Who should history remember as the second best of this generation?

Or the last last decade. I'm assuming Mayweather will be looked back on as the best but who do you feel deserves to be remembered second?

Not Wlad. I really think Wlad would have been dusted by any of the 90's top HW's and Vitali had he been his prime self.

Pacquiao without question, for me.

The bubble around him has burst in the last eighteen months or so, but his career accomplishments clearly outstrip Marquez and Wladimir's.

When Pacquiao was fighting a 'Fight of the Year' contender with Marquez at Super-Featherweight in March 2008, who would ever have thought that, a little over a year and a half later, he'd be absolutely thrashing a fighter of Cotto's calibre up at Welter? When Barrera was still the right side of thirty, in fantastic form (with more to come in the future) and ranked inside the world's top three pound for pound in 2003, who'd have imagined that this little former Flyweight champion, unheralded in comparison, could step up to 126 and hand him a one-sided beating in one of the performances of the decade?

Pacquiao's been one of those fighters who really has sent shockwaves around the sport. Many thought he'd beat Hatton, sure. But I don't think a great deal were thinking that he could absolutely marmalise him the way he did.

Sure, this whole 'eight weight world champion' stuff gets overblown - that's the nature of the beast, unfortunately. But I'll tell you what, being the only man to win titles in four of the original eight divisions, as well as being the only man to win four 'linear' world titles, are fantastic feats whichever way you slice them.

It's weird, despite Marquez apparently being the better fighter head to head I think I've got to go with Pacquiao. His multi weight feats against many different styles and many great names. It wasn't long ago at all that very respectable posters were saying he'd outrank Mayweather based on record. His first win over Barrera still arguably the best win either of them have.

Don't really see an argument for Wlad if I'm honest. Regardless of how talented/great or useless you think he is, he doesn't have the names on his resume. This is one of the first times in a while I've picked others over Wlad without expecting everybody else to be against me.

Chris sent that while I was posting.

Pacquiao with ease

Can either of the two who voted Wlad offer me some reasons to back it up. I can't see any but I'm open minded...

John Bloody Wayne wrote:It's weird, despite Marquez apparently being the better fighter head to head I think I've got to go with Pacquiao.

Exactly what I was thinking.

i actually think manny and floyd never meeting in the ring has damaged both there reputations, and uniquely they will both be remembered more for not fighting each other than for any of their individual wins.

neither man can honestly claim to be undisputed champion of their times as they have always been in each others shadows. both men have had stellar careers, successfully climbed the weights and beat the best. manny has lost a few, but the level of his opposition has been slightly better, and he has had some real epic battles that people will remember for a long long time, floyds never had that career defining fight.

Paquaio by a mile. He even has a decent argument of being above Mayweather.
Its a shame that his last few outings and his connection with Arum have tainted his legacy somewhat.

i think when people look back in the future manny will be remember much more favourably than floyd, exciting fighters always are.

eddyfightfan wrote:i think when people look back in the future manny will be remember much more favourably than floyd, exciting fighters always are.

I think losses to guys who the other guy beat tend to make that not so.

Can't say I agree with either of your points there Eddy.

Firstly we may mention Robinson not facing Burley but it is not what he's remembered for so I see no reason why Mayweather would be any different to him. Will Jones be remembered for not facing Calzaghe or Dariusz M? No he wont, it will be his astonishing talent that is remembered.

Secondly you can be exciting as you want but when you've got 5 losses on your record compared to none at the moment it's not going to cause a weird phenomena where you suddenly becomes more favourably thought of. You'll get those who will prefer to rewatch his fights but he wont be regarded higher, same as with Whitaker and Chavez.

i feel that overall the series of fights with JMM will add to manny's legacy (which is the only real loss people will hold against him), especially earlier on in his career in fights I and II, JMM himself is a p4p fighter and on paper he is still 2-1-1 and his fights with morales/barrera really proved his heart, grit and determination, something floyd has rarely if ever had chance to show, due to his domination over his opponents. i know that should mean its clear floyd should be considered better but there is a unknown factor that he hasn't shown, whereas pacman has many a time.

as for his losses, he has had about 15 more fights, and calazaghe is proof that some people don't always buy into the undefeated = best of a generation theory (most people would say jones was the SMW of the era).

i think floyd would have deserved the top spot, as he has been consistently miles better than all his opponents (cotto fight aside) for about a decade, whereas manny was a limited but tough come forwards fighter, who developed skills later in his career, and seems lately to be lacking the earlier aggression/determination. the problem for me is that whilst floyd beats manny every which way most of that time (including now), i think the manny coming of the hatton demolition job, and before he took apart a much bigger cotto, hit a good enough form to beat floyd in the 2008-2009 window.

the fact that they never got in the ring and proved it one way or the other means that any arguement one way or the other ends in dead lock and comes down to speculation and personal preference.

I don't think you can forget his losses to Torrecampo and Singsurat when much of his greatness is down to being a multi weight world champion, it would be a far too one eyed view for my liking.

I can't agree with much of that post as it is having your cake and eating it, being dominated by and large by Marquez regardless of paper record goes against him while Mayweathers opposition is of a high enough standard to make his unbeaten (as of now) record very significant.

Manny has to come second amongst them 3....................

Like it or not he won the quadrilogy and has better names.

only the last 2 fights manny has been dominated, and the last fight that would be a over statement, the rest was extremely competitive, and sometimes dominated by manny.

it was an extremely impressive win by floyd, but that fight could be down to styles or weights and is not a proving point that floyds better than pacman. if you compare the respective performances against mutal opponents manny looks fairly impressive too, hatton, cotto, de la hoya, mosley.

i dont think you can use the floyd beat JMM more impressively ergo he is better than pacman who struggled with him. as i said earlier then only definite way would have been to fight, and as that didnt happen neither can claim victory. if wlad hadn't fought haye then he would always have had that over him, and the gulf in talent between those two is greater than manny/floyd during 09 especially.

I would say Pacquiao dominated one round out of the 42 they have fought and that's about, at no point am I saying Mayweather is better than him based on their performances against Marquez. It's based more on his domination throughout his career with one close fight against Castillo aside from which he hasn't come close to losing, put in simple terms he just a far superior boxer.

Pacquiao also has a bogeyman, thus far Mayweather does not.

i'd say that was a very unfair assessment of their epic fights, manny was actually doing well last time, and the first half of the first fight JMM was feeling every punch before he got a rhythm.

floyd has been run close by cotto, who was a little shop worn. i think if he losses before he retires he will lose that stigma and p4p him and manny will always be mentioned in the same breath.

Bull***t..No way Manny ever gets mentioned in the same breath,,

Not a chance Eddy, Floyd is a once in a lifetime type fighter like Leonard or Robinson, you're either bigging Pacman up too much or not giving Mayweather anywhere near enough credit.

The Cotto fight wasn't that close though was it really, it was just closer than most of his fights, a 118-110/117-111 fight isn't my definition of close.

Marquez has dominated large parts of their series which Pacquiao hasn't, he's won rounds but other than the very first round hasn't dominated much.

not taking away anything from floyd at all, no question his is a truly great fighter that will be remember largely as the best fighter of our time, but i do think there will be a substantial amount of people who prefer manny (not me personally) who will claim manny was the greatest fighter, and during in a small time frame of a year or so they had a point in my eyes and because the fight could not be made the question will remain forever

i don't think people will forget that the fight never happened as it would truely have been the biggest fight ever, and i think most people thought it would happen at some point.

and i just cannot agree with your assessment of their series, different strokes for different folks on that one i guess