Pac Man Is He A Top Ten P4P?

[Ivich]

In no particular order

Norfolk
Barbados
Fitzs
Spinks
Ryan
McCoy
Leonard
Robinson
Panama
Mayweather
RJJ
Armstrong
Greb
Napoles
Pep
Locche
Pryor
Hearns
Whitaker
Griffith
Hagler
Gans
Charles
Ketchel

I didn't count but I'm pretty sure I've gone over or abouts 20.

Like them all over Pac. Don't hate Pac, just like Kid Norfolk more.


To be fair to Pac, his era is less conducive to p4p glory. Norfolk beat up Greb and Tate, proving he has the goods no matter the size of the man.

I don't like HWs on p4p but that's just my opinion.

Norfolk was a a fine ,though seriously dirty fighter.In their 1 st fight Greb spotted him17and a half pounds and beat him.
Summary of Pittsburgh papers: Pittsburgh Sun 6-4 Norfolk; Pittsburgh Chronicle-Telegraph 6-4 Norfolk; Pittsburgh Post 6-4 Greb; Pittsburgh Gazette-Times 6-4 Norfolk; Pittsburgh Press tabbed Norfolk as the winner; Pittsburgh Dispatch 6-3-1 Greb; Pittsburgh Leader tabbed Greb as winner.
Norfolk, who was 17 1/2 pounds heavier than Greb, won four of the first five rounds, and scored a flash knockdown in round three, not hurting Greb. Greb won every one of the last five rounds. Greb "smothered him with a two-fisted attack, " as Norfolk tired, and the Kid was "all at sea." Referee Yock Henniger said the next day that he would have given it to Greb if a decision was allowed. Norfolk suffered a badly cut eye. Apparently Greb held Norfolk in too much respect until he realized that the Kid could not hurt him. (Reports from the Pittsburgh Post.) It is sometimes said that Norfolk thumbed Greb in this fight, leading to his loss of sight in one eye. However, there is nothing in the account from the Post to indicate anything of that sort. According to Bill Paxton in The Fearless Harry Greb, a punch delivered by Norfolk in this fight may have initiated a retinal detachment which eventually caused Greb to lose his sight in the right eye. This idea is based on the fact that Greb reportedly started experiencing some unusual visual effects after this fight.Greb had a battle with Chuck Wiggins the following week, whereas Norfolk had to take several months off. Norfolk beat up Greb? Did he?

The boxing commission suspended both Greb and Norfolk six months for fighting after the bell. The Boston Globe reported that "for the first five rounds, Greb was outclassed." However, according to the Pittsburgh Post, Norfolk charged into Greb, head down, and butted him through the ropes and into the press section in round two. The referee should have disqualified Norfolk, but the fight continued. Norfolk intentionally punched Greb in the groin several times until Harry retaliated, which caused him to be disqualified. The crowd put up a terrific protest and the referee had to flee the ring. The "last two rounds were fought along the foulest possible lines."
I don't place much store by Norfolk beating Dempsey's sparring partner.

I see Langford doesn't make your cut ,yet whilst half blind he kod Norfolk in2 rds

Langford defends his World 'colored' heavyweight title claim
Norfolk down 3 times in 2d
Seems a bit illogical to me.

[Ivich]

This was about the ability to do 20 without Pac and was unorganized, as in no thought in placement. I am a langford fan I just didn't think about him because it's meant to be a low effort task.

Bottom line I don't put Norfolk over r Pacquiao and your reasons for doing so are spurious imo .he didnt "beat up Greb", he brutally and cynically fouled him ,and beating Tate was never a noteworthy feat. If you were to have said ,"well he beat an aging Jeannette twice," that would be a more valid reason but you didn't, and," low effort," equates to lazy, can't be bothered.
For me P4P involves a fighter moving up successfully through the weights,except for certain exceptions such as
Pep,B Leonard,maybe Ali,who were obviously standouts in their divisions
I wouldnt put
McCoy
Pryor
Panama Joe Gans
Mike Spinks
Ryan
Locche
Ketchel
Mayweather A cherry picker.
Above Pacquiao, though a case can be made for Ryan.That's just my opinion though.

[DeeMoney]

Bottom line I don't put Norfolk over r Pacquiao and your reasons for doing so are spurious imo .he didnt "beat up Greb", he brutally and cynically fouled him ,and beating Tate was never a noteworthy feat. If you were to have said ,"well he beat an aging Jeannette twice," that would be a more valid reason but you didn't, and," low effort," equates to lazy, can't be bothered.
For me P4P involves a fighter moving up successfully through the weights,except for certain exceptions such as
Pep,B Leonard,maybe Ali,who were obviously standouts in their divisions
I wouldnt put
McCoy
Pryor
Panama Joe Gans
Mike Spinks
Ryan
Locche
Ketchel
Mayweather A cherry picker.
Above Pacquiao, though a case can be made for Ryan.That's just my opinion though.

I get what you are writing in that regard, and you do note certain exceptions. But I think a case can be made for those fighters who are great within a given weight class for being ranked highly P4P. If pound for pound implies that we are trying to balance out for the variable of weight and weight class, then being dominant within a given weight class should also be something taken into account, regardless of moving up in weight. Or at the least it should be understood that it is a viable criteria (I state that because it tends to be my top criteria).

Thats why I believe you could put a Spinks ahead of Pacquiao. There are those out there who argue Spinks at Lt Heavy was the best ever within that class, though not the depth of resume but the ability, and I think most accept him as at least top 5. To me, that speaks as much to P4P as moving through weight classes, and its why guys like Monzon and Hagler get short changed in this type of discussion.

[Ivich]

I see



And you responded to that with the following:



See these quotes here? They are why you're getting a no effort response out of me in this thread.

I am a little annoyed at this point. I'm not getting a handle on your sensibilities and do not know how to speak to you for effective communication so I'll stop trying.

There was absolutely nothing personal in the quote your responded to, yet you took it personally.

This one, in this thread, is slightly personal, it's low effort, can't be bothered, because I think you are a sensitive little bitch who might cry if I ask you too many questions about your opinion.

That clarify our juxtaposition for you or do I need to slow this down a bit?

I went light, nice, respectable, and without insults and you cried about it. Then I went so vague and without detail I felt it would be impossible to offend you and you still cried about.

You tell me exactly how you'd like me to respond to you without making your pussy so dry it cracks like mud in a drought.


That said, if you'd like to go back to how I used to speak to you just tell me and I'll stop being a prick, but, if you respond like a sniveling tit tugger to me again I'll give another verbal slapping you goofy ***********. Have I made myself clear?


edit/additional:

That's only eight names ya dumb ****. Means Pac's still not a top ten doesn't it? Mook.

You couldnt offend me Sunshine you have neither the wit nor the education,
I've been running into self proclaimed experts like you on forums like this for years.Legends in their own lavatories.
I said your list equates to lazy and can't be bothered, which you have admitted to and in response I get this faux indignant diatribe of personal insults.Hilarious!
Mr Important , Mr Wannabee , you couldn't slap your own arse !
PS The * names are those I would remove,which would be self evident to anyone who wasn't blinded by the sense of their own omnipotence!
NB My sensibilities ? This is a Boxing Forum ! Since I don't value your opinion one iota I don't give a good **** how you respond, now does that clarify things for you sweetheart?
Get a life you precious little flower!LOL

[Ivich]

Self proclaimed? *****, you've done nothing but tell us you opinion. Nothing of worth, nothing of value. I am simply pointing out I have.

See all that **** you say about me? Well mine's backed by something. TF have you got? Bitching about low effort, son, read one of my threads; your whole entire posting career here combined is low effort compared to just one of my threads.

I should not have to point out to you ****** ****s I've done more research and shared more research. You want respect? Do something. Everyone here can tell you I could not care less if we get on or not. The only way to get anything out of me in your threads is to post something worth half a ****.

So far you range from what you think to asking what we think. You're a basic ***** and I am not. Period.

You are labouring under the false impression that you are some kind of expert.
Perhaps you've managed, with your self promotional posts, to convince others that is in fact the case?
For my part I see a needy poster desperate to be viewed as some kind of wise old head.

So far I've seen nothing from you but a load of bombast and hot air. I don't need respect on this forum,it's probably the least informed forum I've been on.
You don't like my posts ?That's fine WTFWIC?
Don't respond to them!
I take it you don;t need a translation?

[Ivich]

Expert? Compared to you, surely.

You can try all you like to flip this as some form of grandiose but the fact remains my research is here to be read and yours is all claims and allusion. Wonder why that is ya big mouthed lazy tit tugger?

Why don't you just refute my earlier posts re /The 50's being a poor era and Lastarza being a protected fighter?
I've set out my stall and now I am inviting you to punch holes in it?
So its now time for you to grow a pair and present your case that counters my points.
I invite you to do so and then we can debate each others opinions.
That constitutes what a forum is for.
Making the remarks below is the very essence of self glorification.
It shows not only a startling lack of self - awareness but unparalled conceit and egotism.


"Am I the only man here who can speak to any era, period, with confidence and depth? Yes, the answer to that is yes. My sig alone shows more research and sharing information than you ****ers even try to muster and it's just the threads I can fit in a sig. This isn't meant to be an insult, it's a brag. I do, most certainly, know something you ****ers do not. Think about that **** while you read this next paragraph."

Mr I Do Love Myself Marchegiano LOL.You couldnt make this **** up!

[QueensburyRules]

- - Numerical P4P statistics already proveManny as the Ring P4P King in Total Fights, Wins, KOs, and consecutive years ranked against fellow Ring Ranked P4Pers who pale in comparison.

A fighter no matter how great can do no more than fight in his era as Manny did in spades.

U boys still pounding square pegs into round holes or have the pegs become round and the holes square now?

[Ivich]

expert? Compared to you, surely.

You can try all you like to flip this as some form of grandiose but the fact remains my research is here to be read and yours is all claims and allusion. Wonder why that is ya big mouthed lazy tit tugger?

Yes I've given my opinions, isn't that what a forum is for?

Isn't that an invitation for others to debate the accuracy of those opinions either for or against as they see it?
In passing you ought to have noticed that I didn't make a call either way on Pacquiao being a top ten P4P, I just made the thread to stimulate discussion.

I've challenged you to refute my posts.
After you typing such choice epiphets as
mook,snivelling tit hugger,prick,goofy****,***** so dry it cracks like mud,big mouthed lazy tit tugger and other infantile insults.
I'ts time to **** or get off the pot!

Refusal now on your part to accept my challenge can only lead to the inevitable conclusion that you are a yellow gutted coward of the first order .
I've posted my points regarding Lastarza being a protected fighter .and the Fifties being a shallow era for quality heavyweights these directly refute your own statements.
The onus is now on you to provide a coherent rebuttal of my points.
No response with a considered argument from you constitutes abject cowardice!!!!!!!

I made statements on the subject and I am not only happy to defend them I look forward to the opportunity to do so in debate.Will you take up the gauntlet or can we just expect more silly childish insults, a craven get out on your side that fools nobody?
I await your reply. Mr Self Proclaimed Expert!