MANNY AT 130

The claim that Manny Pacquiao is the only fighter in history to win legitimate, lineal titles in four weight classes rests on a judgement regarding his accomplishments at 130 pounds.

At 112 he defeated Chatchai Saskul who had defeated Yuri Arbachakov who had defeated Maungchai Kittekasem and so on in a line that goes back to Miguel Canto in the mid 1970's. No question this counts.

He has no claim at 115, 118 or 122.

At 126 he defeated Marco Antonio Barerra who had defeated Naseem Hamed and so on back to Eusabio Pedroza in the mid-1980's. Again, no question.

His single fight at 135 over David Diaz gives him no claim there.

At 140 he defeated Ricky Hatton who had defeated Kosta Tszyu who pretty clearly had begun a new line at 140 and was THE MAN. One could quibble, but does anyone really NOT think Kostya was THE MAN at 140?

Until and unless he meets Floyd Mayweather or Mayweather retires or otherwise is beaten, Manny can have no claim at 147.

So that takes us to 130. The last probably true claimant was Floyd Mayweather who had beaten Genaro Hernandez who had beaten Azumah Nelson. Whether or not Azumah had done enough to start a new line is a question for another time, but I think he did.

So for Manny to get credit for a fourth title, he has to have done enough to begin a new line at 130. The first question is what does it take to do that? I don't think there is a very good, clean and measurable answer to that. I think it is simply a matter of judgement where we look at a situation in toto and come to the conclusion "Yeah, he did enough, he is THE MAN," or "No he didn't, there was NO MAN at that time in that division."

So what is the situation before Manny arrives? At the end of 2004, Ring Magazine had the following rankings in the 130 division:
1. Marco Antonio Barerra
2. Erik Morales
3. Jesus Chavez
4. Yodsanan sor Nanthachai
5. Carlos Hernandez

Manny enters the division in March 2005 and loses to Erik Morales. He then defeats unranked Hector Velasquez and 2005 comes to an end.

The Ring rankings for the end of 2005 are as follows
1. MAB
2. Morales
3. Manny
4. Vicente Mosquera
5. Nanthachai

Jesus Chavez has moved to 135 and Carlos Hernandez lost to Bobby Pacquiao and Jesus Chavez to fall out of the rankings.

In 2006 Manny defeats Erik Morales (coming off a loss to Zahir Raheem at 135), Oscar Larios (ranked at 122 and coming off a loss to Izzy Vasquez).

The Ring rankings at the end of 2006 are as follows
1. Manny
2. MAB (coming off the two Rocky Juarez fights)
3. Joan Guzman
4. Erik Morales
5. Jorge Barrios

Mosquera had been KO'd by Edwin Valero and Nanthachai had just done nothing of note and fell out of the rankings. Guzman had defeated Jorge Barrios in a split decision and beaten Antonio Davis to enter the rankings.

In 2007 Manny stops ranked featherweight Jorge Solis in the latter's first fight at 130. He decisions MAB.

The Ring rankings at the end of 2007 are as follows
1. Manny
2. Juan Manuel Marquez
3. Guzman
4. Edwin Valero
5. Humberto Soto

In 2008 Manny decisions JMM and that is the end of his 130 career.

In the Manny did enough column are the following
-defeated the #2 ranked 130 on three occasions.
-On two of those occasions that guy was the #1 guy except for Manny
-Cleaning out the division is a more comprehensive accomplishment than becoming THE MAN. But we aren't measuring (in this exercise) cleaning out the division.

In the Manny didn't do enough column are the following
-He only fought three ranked 130's so there is no way one can argue he cleaned out the division
-Juan Guzman was ranked #3 over a two year period and Manny didn't fight him. Had he done THAT, he'd have a stronger case.

So that's the data as best as I can accumulate it. What say you? Did Manny do enough to create a new line and obtain a true championship at 130?

I would say yes (for all the reasons you already gave) but I am biased.

I know the Ring title and lineal title a slightly different but i would still say the Ring title is a fair way of determining the lineal crown of a division. Manny beat Marquez for the vacant 130 Ring title. So i would say Manny did win the lineal title at 130.

SlickMoneyXL wrote:

I know the Ring title and lineal title a slightly different but i would still say the Ring title is a fair way of determining the lineal crown of a division. Manny beat Marquez for the vacant 130 Ring title. So i would say Manny did win the lineal title at 130.

...this makes sence...the crown in essense was vacant outside the abc junk..manny didnt beat the man like lets say basilio or robinson did winning for example a middle title..he won a fight where ring said the winners the ring champ..a 2 man tourney..im not sure that makes him a lineal champ..if he won a tourney like jimmy ellis or patterson did then i say yes a new line started..lets call it 3 and a half..great reasearch marble and good question.

soonermark890 wrote:

I would say yes (for all the reasons you already gave) but I am biased.

At the end of the day I come down with a "yes" too. But it isn't a slam-dunk is it?

dmar5143 wrote:

SlickMoneyXL wrote:

I know the Ring title and lineal title a slightly different but i would still say the Ring title is a fair way of determining the lineal crown of a division. Manny beat Marquez for the vacant 130 Ring title. So i would say Manny did win the lineal title at 130.

...this makes sence...the crown in essense was vacant outside the abc junk..manny didnt beat the man like lets say basilio or robinson did winning for example a middle title..he won a fight where ring said the winners the ring champ..a 2 man tourney..im not sure that makes him a lineal champ..if he won a tourney like jimmy ellis or patterson did then i say yes a new line started..lets call it 3 and a half..great reasearch marble and good question.

The counter to that is Manny put himself in the position where #1 met #2 by defeating the previous 2 #2's. Isn't that a sort of informal tourney?

The answer to me isn't a lock by any means.

marbleheadmaui wrote:

soonermark890 wrote:

I would say yes (for all the reasons you already gave) but I am biased.

At the end of the day I come down with a "yes" too. But it isn't a slam-dunk is it?

I think it is because who else could we really say would have gave him a fight? He beat the best in the division and then he went on to better things. I know thats not exact on what a lot of people describe as lineal but by today's standard he did more than enough.

soonermark890 wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

soonermark890 wrote:

I would say yes (for all the reasons you already gave) but I am biased.

At the end of the day I come down with a "yes" too. But it isn't a slam-dunk is it?

I think it is because who else could we really say would have gave him a fight? He beat the best in the division and then he went on to better things. I know thats not exact on what a lot of people describe as lineal but by today's standard he did more than enough.

Well, but the standard in this particular case shouldn't be some watered down standard of today. The standard for being THE MAN should be the same as it was for Robinson or Canzoneri or Frazier since those kinds of comparisons are the reason for the question in the first place.

I mean here's a question. When did Joe Frazier become heavyweight champion?

marbleheadmaui wrote:

soonermark890 wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

soonermark890 wrote:

I would say yes (for all the reasons you already gave) but I am biased.

At the end of the day I come down with a "yes" too. But it isn't a slam-dunk is it?

I think it is because who else could we really say would have gave him a fight? He beat the best in the division and then he went on to better things. I know thats not exact on what a lot of people describe as lineal but by today's standard he did more than enough.

Well, but the standard in this particular case shouldn't be some watered down standard of today. The standard for being THE MAN should be the same as it was for Robinson or Canzoneri or Frazier since those kinds of comparisons are the reason for the question in the first place.

I mean here's a question. When did Joe Frazier become heavyweight champion?

You have a very good point I didnt think about it that way. I still say yes but I now see your point.

when he beat jimmy ellis..ali was forceably retired and ellis won a tourney with the top 8 heavies that needed 3 wins in that tourney to win the vacant title.

when ali came back and frazier beat him then he was excepted by ali fans..ellis in reality started a new line and was legit heavyweight champ..

dmar5143 wrote:

when he beat jimmy ellis..ali was forceably retired and ellis won a tourney with the top 8 heavies that needed 3 wins in that tourney to win the vacant title.

It's funny, neither Ring Magazine nor Cyberboxingzone agree with that. They had Ali as champion until Frazier defeated him.

Those organizations aren't the be all and end all of course, just saying the answer isn't obvious to everyone.

You have NYSAC (when they still mattered) having him champ after Mathis, the WBA/WBC after Ellis and Ring etc after Ali.

soonermark890 wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

soonermark890 wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

soonermark890 wrote:

I would say yes (for all the reasons you already gave) but I am biased.

At the end of the day I come down with a "yes" too. But it isn't a slam-dunk is it?

I think it is because who else could we really say would have gave him a fight? He beat the best in the division and then he went on to better things. I know thats not exact on what a lot of people describe as lineal but by today's standard he did more than enough.

Well, but the standard in this particular case shouldn't be some watered down standard of today. The standard for being THE MAN should be the same as it was for Robinson or Canzoneri or Frazier since those kinds of comparisons are the reason for the question in the first place.

I mean here's a question. When did Joe Frazier become heavyweight champion?

You have a very good point I didnt think about it that way. I still say yes but I now see your point.

I still say yes too, just arguing for arguing's sake.

marbleheadmaui wrote:

soonermark890 wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

soonermark890 wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

soonermark890 wrote:

I would say yes (for all the reasons you already gave) but I am biased.

At the end of the day I come down with a "yes" too. But it isn't a slam-dunk is it?

I think it is because who else could we really say would have gave him a fight? He beat the best in the division and then he went on to better things. I know thats not exact on what a lot of people describe as lineal but by today's standard he did more than enough.

Well, but the standard in this particular case shouldn't be some watered down standard of today. The standard for being THE MAN should be the same as it was for Robinson or Canzoneri or Frazier since those kinds of comparisons are the reason for the question in the first place.

I mean here's a question. When did Joe Frazier become heavyweight champion?

You have a very good point I didnt think about it that way. I still say yes but I now see your point.

I still say yes too, just arguing for arguing's sake.

No really its a great thought. I never even thought to question it. But hey thats why you are the more knowledgable one.

ellis was legit champ no matter what ring said..ali had no boxing liscense for almost 3 years was striped by every orginaztion world wide and every boxing state commision..a tourney was set up for the 8 top heavies to fight.lose and your out..frazier said noo so pennslyvania and n y matched frazier who renigned on the tourney with unranked buster mathis whos claim to fame was he beat joe twice in 3 round amatuer fights..ali was forceably retired and with noo boxing lisence..nat fletcher loved maybe controversy soo he may of kept ali champ..at that time boxing commisions were not a joke like today..the whole world france britian etc etc every state except 2 which reniged when joe did recognized the tourney as legit and the winner as lineal champion..ring magazine was not a commision just a pupett and tool for nat fletcher..if joe had went into the tourney pennsyvania would of not reniged..politics cause joes from there..every i mean every commision state wide and world wide recognized the tourney..ellis became a legit champ..its no different when tunney or marciano retired..a tourney was set up..again ali was banned from boxing world wide..including the 2 states and was forceably retired...joe won the title when he beat ellis..charles was the real champ when he fought joe louis..noo different..if ring and boxingzone want to make a political statement fine..there not a commision and unlike todays commisions they had sensibilty....

dmar5143 wrote:

ellis was legit champ no matter what ring said..ali had no boxing liscense for almost 3 years was striped by every orginaztion world wide and every boxing state commision..a tourney was set up for the 8 top heavies to fight.lose and your out..frazier said noo so pennslyvania and n y matched frazier who renigned on the tourney with unranked buster mathis whos claim to fame was he beat joe twice in 3 round amatuer fights..ali was forceably retired and with noo boxing lisence..nat fletcher loved maybe controversy soo he may of kept ali champ..at that time boxing commisions were not a joke like today..the whole world france britian etc etc every state except 2 which renigned when joe did recognized the tourney as legit and the winner as lineal champion..ring magazine was not a commision just a pupett and tool for nat fletcher..if joe had went into the tourney pennsyvania would of not renigned..politics cause joes from there..every i mean every commision state wide and world wide recognized the tourney..ellis became a legit champ..its no different when tunney or marciano retired..a tourney was set up..again ali was banned from boxing world wide..including the 2 states and was forceably retired...joe won the title when he beat ellis..charles was the real champ when he fought joe louis..noo different..if ring and boxingzone want to make a political statement fine..there not a commision and unlike todays commisions they had sensibilty....

It's probably my own ignorance, but you might be the first person I've ever heard refer to Jimmy Ellis as a lineal heavyweight champion.

not realy the first..every commision recognized ellis as champ..ny state and pennsylvania changed there mind when frazier bowed out of the tourney..its no differnt then chaRLES WHEN HE FOUIGHT louis..joe was the challenger..to me thats lineal..to the commisions world wide it was lineal..when lennox lewis retired they should of had either the top 4 or 8 fight for the vacant title..instead everyone had this fight as champ another fight as champ which is nonsence..back then it was done right..the top 8 minus frazier who did not want to fight in the tourney soo he was out..the winners the new lineal champ since ali was banned from fighting ..and for almost 3 years..a forceable retirement by all commisions..that forceable retirement means noo legit boxing authority with real authority recognized ali as champ..the title declared vacant..soo everyone involved except the 2 states which originaly went along recognized ellis the winner as champ..its just not me..he earned that honor ..

some of the general public like the general public in louis time and even jeffries time recognized them as champ..its just not reality..others were the champ..like johnson charles and ellis.

dmar5143 wrote:

not realy the first..every commision recognized ellis as champ..ny state and pennsylvania changed there mind when frazier bowed out of the tourney..its no differnt then chaRLES WHEN HE FOUIGHT louis..joe was the challenger..to me thats lineal..to the commisions world wide it was lineal..when lennox lewis retired they should of had either the top 4 or 8 fight for the vacant title..instead everyone had this fight as champ another fight as champ which is nonsence..back then it was done right..the top 8 minus frazier who did not want to fight in the tourney soo he was out..the winners the new lineal champ since ali was banned from fighting ..and for almost 3 years..a forceable retirement by all commisions..that forceable retirement means noo legit boxing authority with real authority recognized ali as champ..the title declared vacant..soo everyone involved except the 2 states which originaly went along recognized ellis the winner as champ..its just not me..he earned that honor ..

Like I said, it's just the first time I've heard Ellis get that credit. I suspect Ali's eventual exoneration made people believe the "forced retirement" to simply be an injustice that shouldn't be given weight and that therefore the tourney excluded the two men who were clearly the class of the division at the time.

I have no pre-1970 direct memories of boxing so I am going on what I've read and heard and I'm guessing that the tournament was considered more important when it was happening than it was only 2 years later.

But that's a WAG.

i understand what your trying to say..but the true anser to the question was when did joe frazier bec ome universaly recognized as HW champ..the true anser is when he beat jimmy ellis..every boxing commission in the world recognized joe as the undisputed champ...noo one recognized ali that had real offical meaningfull authority..some of the public sure..ring mag sure..the rest of the world and ALL the commisions said it was frazier after he beat ellis..thats what counted back then..

the tourney invited joe..he was one of the first to be invited..he backed out..too bad he did..this i remember clearly saying well aliu got screwd but thats the way the cookie crumbles atleast there doing it right.

dmar5143 wrote:

i understand what your trying to say..but the true anser to the question was when did joe frazier bec ome universaly recognized as HW champ..the true anser is when he beat jimmy ellis..every boxing commission in the world recognized joe as the undisputed champ...noo one recognized ali that had real offical meaningfull authority..some of the public sure..ring mag sure..the rest of the world and ALL the commisions said it was frazier after he beat ellis..thats what counted back then..

Fair enough except the WBC never recognized Ellis either.

Great read. Would've loved to see Guzman and Manny at 130.