View Single Post
#1
Old 12-19-2012, 03:01 AM
techliam
IBF World Champion
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Aberdeen, UK
Posts: 1,835
Blog Entries: 2
Rep Power: 8 techliam has a reputation beyond reputetechliam has a reputation beyond reputetechliam has a reputation beyond reputetechliam has a reputation beyond reputetechliam has a reputation beyond reputetechliam has a reputation beyond reputetechliam has a reputation beyond reputetechliam has a reputation beyond reputetechliam has a reputation beyond reputetechliam has a reputation beyond reputetechliam has a reputation beyond repute
Points: 11,100,059,931.40
Bank: 1,025,258,718,005.90
Total Points: 1,036,358,777,937.30
Consistently good poster. - ddangerous cheers m8 - hougigo 
Default Why do people see Mayweather as the best at 154?

Mayweather beat Cotto at 154, now people see him as the best there. I see the Mayweather-Cotto fight as a battle of WW's with a bit more muscle, neither should be campaigning with the JR Middleweights. Cotto was wrongly ranked no.1.

Canelo and Trout are natural 154lb'ers. If Mayweather beat one of these, I could see the argument. But he hasn't, so why is he considered better than boxers naturally at this weight, naturally much bigger?

I can see why Mayweather fans would feel offended by this. But Mayweather doesn't have to be unbeatable at any weight he fights in, to be at the level he is at. In fact, for all we know he is probably very vulnerable at 154 against Cotto/Trout. All it means is that 154 is too big for him.

I can see Trout beating Mayweather by UD. Canelo, i'm not too sure.
Reply With Quote
techliam is offline
Advertisements
>>>TO REMOVE THESE ADS, PLEASE REGISTER HERE FOR FREE<<<