Manny Pacquiao has 1 good WW win imo

[chillifists]

Lets look at who Manny has fought at WW:

DLH - seriously dude was on IV's and hadn't fought at WW in about 10 years, and was busted up by freaking Steve Forbes in his previous fight. DLH was shot and retired right after the fight.

Cotto - a good win for Manny but nothing more. Cotto was annihilated by Margarito and hasn't been the same since. After the Marg fight Cotto beat a bum for a vacant belt in Jennings and had a very close fight with Clottey, wow so what?

Clottey - this is a solid win but Clottey has never beaten anybody of consequence and he was coming off a loss to Cotto. Furthermore, the fight was boring as hell and Josh didn't even put up a fight.

Mosley-

JMM is next. So somebody please explain to me how Manny's WW run is so impressive?

That's a great question!

I'd say it's nothing great or impressive at all. There has been much more fighters in the last 15 years or so alone that have had a better career than Manny at Welterweight.

Manny's career is heavily overrated at Welterweight that's for sure!

[tatangb45]

First of all "he was dehydrated and weight drained" is a statement that can NEVER be seen as an opinion Lmfao... Even if it is proven to not be a fact, then its just wrong, it doesn't all of a sudden become an opinion. Neither can Nacho's statement lol.

So your telling me that becuz his trainer said he followed the diet correctly, the Oscar that fought Manny, that couldn't even throw a jab, was in tip top shape? Do u really think following a diet can't result in muscle loss and dehydration? The guy blows up to 165 (at least) while weighing in at 154, but can't even hold down more than 2lbs of food and water weighing in at 147lbs Lol... think about that. Oscar himself said that he felt great, but showed up at the fight hardly able to move... (Which is a FACT BTW, all u gotta do is watch the fight)

Did u ever consider that maybe your only believing what Nacho said becuz it make's Pac look better, AKA displaying bias opinion for one explanation and not the other becuz it helps your point? The guy had IV's in him... Freddie Roach saw this (FACT)... Or was Roach only saying that to take away from Manny's accomplishment lmfao!

Anyone else that wants to give you props for your comment should look at my first reply... Right off the bat, ur comment is bad... Let's see what else u got



Clottey didn't even enter the first round trying to win. If Clottey only stopped throwing punches in the second half of the fight, or even by the 5th round, than you'd have a point. But he NEVER put up a game effort in that fight. Cotto and Mosley didn't start running until they were knocked down (the second knockdown for Cotto), prior to which they were trying to win, and in Cotto's case actually was out boxing him. And (maybe not so much with shot Mosley but), even while Cotto was running he never stopped throwing meaningful punches. Cotto was swinging for the fences with his left hook (obviously trying to get a KO AKA trying to win), proof is in the destroyed cauliflower ear Pac had after the fight (and obviously u can see it happening during the fight too). Since there's proof... isn't it Basically a fact? Maybe not always, but in this case?

Your entire point, especially the second paragraph, doesn't disprove the FACT that Clottey entered that fight not trying to win/didn't put up any kind of game effort since the beginning of round 1. Like I said, u could have beat prime Mike Tyson if he chose not to throw any punches, would u really consider that a "good win"? Good name maybe, not a good win.

And to answer ur question, why SOME of those fighters were so dominated as they were against Pac, in the case of De La Hoya and Mosley, they were both shot. De La Hoya, already showing signs of decline prior to this, was dehydrated and weight drained (FACT, not opinion lmfao...). Mosley, who showed a serious decline in ability in his draw (which was arguably a loss) to Sergio Mora, couldn't have possibly gotten any better 8 months later when fighting Pacquiao.

And don't get all that twisted with me saying Pacquiao isn't a world class fighter. U put a world class fighter in there with a dehydrated/weight drained fighter, on the decline, and he will always dominate them in a way they will likely never be dominated again. Shot Muhammad Ali wasn't as badly beaten by Trever Berbick as he was by Larry Holmes was he?



So you're saying that I'm right about that being a FACT... Mosley looked absolutely horrible... (In Truth: This is an opinion, although its one of those opinion that anyone that disagrees with it is ignorant, so it might as well be fact) That's really the gist of what you're trying to say, right? In which case, there was no point, other than to try and build up Pacquiao's accomplishment of beating Shane Mosley by claiming that he did so "not because [Mosley] was shot, but because he was simply outclassed."

But didn't u have Mosley listed as 1 of Floyd's unimpressive victories at welterweight? So I don't get what your trying to defend here? R u implying that he was an unimpressive victory for Floyd, but a good one for Manny, despite him actually looking worse (the more common opinion of non-bias fans for both fights)?

Also this doesn't contradict my point, which was that Pacquiao didn't look good fighting this broke down Mosley... Lol, did u forget that part? The 1 actual opinion you could have easily blew off as just opinion (although its the more common opinion of non bias fans) and u missed it trying to be too smart

Bold: Lastly, it was not Stewart, it was Richardson.



You've made your stance as a bias Pacquiao fan very clear (Note: I didn't say *******)... And don't let those "good post" comments let u get a big head. I bet all 3 of them r either also bias Pacquiao fans, or just read the big words and proper grammar u used and assumed it was a good post (cudos for the grammar)... The refute I just made clearly shows it was not... And unless u can't refute my refute (I have my doubts, I'll admit), this conversation isn't over.

You seem to still not get it. Everything that you enumerated are again mere opinions. I will not go all over again to each point you brought up because this will just become another endless debate.

But for the sake of argument, I'll discuss one of your points. Lets take the first one, DLH's case.
You still maintain that it is a FACT that he was weight drained and dehydrated, but in the same paragraph you also quoted DLH himself saying he felt great.
That alone debunks your claims of being factual. It is just not Nacho who said it, that's the trainer and the fighter himself. So, are your FACTS more factual than theirs?
DLH may have entered the ring much lighter than his previous fights, but that does not automatically translates to his being drained and dehydrated. He fought the first few rounds as the same later DLH version, a come forward boxer who is more effective when his opponent stays in front of him. But as the fight progressed, it became apparent that he could not cope with Pac's speed and style. Almost every attempt he made to mount on offensive was thwarted by the elusiveness of his opponent. Pac's speed made DLH looked slow. Nacho even confirmed this by saying that Pac was just too fast and wanted DLH to give up the fight.

I can go on and on and show your FACTS to be opinions, but I will take one more of your points because I think this one summarizes the whole debate.

Actually, it is your one main point, which is also the ts's point, and that is, Pac's resume sucks.
All of what you have presented are mere opinions that attempt to reduced Pac's wins as without much value. You and the rest of Floyd fans have continuously tried to downgrade Pac's achievements by dissing his opponents.
One thing that you "unbiased fans" failed to point out and continuously ignore, is the consistent demolition of all of Pac's recent opponents. Bigger and stronger opponents, some of whom were avoided by some fighters. Bigger and stronger opponents, most of whom were not humiliated in their previous fights but were against Pac. One time may be a fluke, but doing this six times in a row is no longer a coincidence.

Like I said before, these are my opinions, and I have defended them strongly and clearly, but they remain opinions because others may have a different take on them.
One thing I try to avoid though, and that is, to distort the facts to suit my arguments.

Btw, you are right about Richardson. With regards to Mosley, I was merely showing that this was not a shot Mosley, but the same Mosley that Floyd fought, and maybe even a better conditioned Mosley.

[hugh grant]

Lets look at who Manny has fought at WW:

DLH - seriously dude was on IV's and hadn't fought at WW in about 10 years, and was busted up by freaking Steve Forbes in his previous fight. DLH was shot and retired right after the fight.

Cotto - a good win for Manny but nothing more. Cotto was annihilated by Margarito and hasn't been the same since. After the Marg fight Cotto beat a bum for a vacant belt in Jennings and had a very close fight with Clottey, wow so what?

Clottey - this is a solid win but Clottey has never beaten anybody of consequence and he was coming off a loss to Cotto. Furthermore, the fight was boring as hell and Josh didn't even put up a fight.

Mosley-

JMM is next. So somebody please explain to me how Manny's WW run is so impressive?

Pac has had 4 WW fights, and 4 great wins. How he beat them could only be the work of someone as great as Pac is, although it is easy to make excuses about the opponents like haters will always do, so hi hater is an appropriate name for you.
DLH, Clottey, SSM, Cotto could fight for the next five years and not be beat like they were against Pac.

So the TS is wrong, Pac has 4 GREAT WW wins.

[JDezi4]

You seem to still not get it. Everything that you enumerated are again mere opinions. I will not go all over again to each point you brought up because this will just become another endless debate.

There's a reason I separated all my replies into paragraphs. So that its much easier for u to refute each point separately. Don't be a coward. There's nothing wrong with an endless debate as long as it stays friendly. As of right now, I'm getting this impression that you're ducking the conversation because ur intimidated... Prove me wrong

But for the sake of argument, I'll discuss one of your points. Lets take the first one, DLH's case.
You still maintain that it is a FACT that he was weight drained and dehydrated, but in the same paragraph you also quoted DLH himself saying he felt great.
That alone debunks your claims of being factual. It is just not Nacho who said it, that's the trainer and the fighter himself. So, are your FACTS more factual than theirs?

Lol, so ur going by what De La Hoya said before the fight and touting it as fact? Lol so De La Hoya "The PROMOTER" is incapable of lying in order to sell a fight I guess... Its funny u should mention that, becuz if u were to ask De La Hoya NOW if he was dehydrated I guarantee he'd say "yes". I bet if that were the case, all of a sudden De La Hoya would be a chronic liar. Am I right?

Fighters, Promoters, Trainer, Managers... All those guys will lie through their teeth in order to sell a fight... Lol, I would love for u to prove this is opinion and not fact.

Edwin Valero (who claimed to be the one that gave De La Hoya the black eye during sparring) said De La Hoya was absolute shyt in sparring and it didn't surprise him at all that he was TKO'd by Pac. Is Edwin Valero not just trustworthy, if not, more so then De La Hoya?

DLH may have entered the ring much lighter than his previous fights, but that does not automatically translates to his being drained and dehydrated.

Lol... Yeah sure it doesn't "automatically" I suppose... There certainly other possibilities to consider sure... Like for example, he did it on purpose becuz he wanted to feel weak... Lol a guy that rehydrates to 165+ when weighing in at 154, rehydrating to 147 when weighing in at 145 is not healthy. 2 lbs of water. A normal person needs a MINIMUM of 1 gallon of water a day. Go ask yourself how much 1 gallon of water weighs. Now think about how much rehydration a professional boxer, that just recently lost 9lbs from his regular weigh-in weight would need (taking into mind, most fighter's "weigh-in weights" are rarely ever there most comfortable weight, and they tend to dehydrate themselves to make that weigh-in weight)?

He was DEHYDRATED... FACT!!!

I'll even ignore "weight drained" just becuz u make that one a little more difficult to prove outside of the obvious eye test.

He fought the first few rounds as the same later DLH version, a come forward boxer who is more effective when his opponent stays in front of him.

Did u see his fight with Steve Forbes? In any case, along with he was not in his prime, and was close to being shot... Then add the DEHYDRATION part.

Nacho even confirmed this by saying that Pac was just too fast and wanted DLH to give up the fight.

This doesn't prove he wasn't dehydrated... Just becuz Nacho admits Pacquiao was faster doesn't prove anything other than that Pacquiao was faster. Pacquiao could EASILY (and indeed was) be faster than a DEHYDRATED DE LA HOYA right?

I can go on and on and show your FACTS to be opinions

Lol, then do it!!!!!!

Actually, it is your one main point, which is also the ts's point, and that is, Pac's resume sucks.

Pac's welterweight resume, keep that in mind. More so that its "overrated" then it sucks.

All of what you have presented are mere opinions

Broken record at this point. I've proven u wrong on this, I feel. I'd like u to refute if u can.

"You and the rest of Floyd fans have continuously tried to downgrade Pac's achievements by dissing his opponents.

Real quick, real quick... QUOTE ME EXACTLY where it shows that I am a bias Floyd fan... Lol, I just want u to understand, on the "off chance" that u fail to do so, since its so plainly obvious that I am, all that will show is that u, like MOST OTHER bias Pac fans, need to find a more direct excuse not to bother (AKA to DUCK) conversing like a gentlemen.

Its either I am a Floyd fan and therefore bias, and downplay Floyd's rival's achievements just to make Floyd look better (it just so happens Floyd's rival is Pac). Or I'm a Pac-Hater and bias, in which case I am negative against all Pac's achievements just becuz I don't like him. You'd actually have an argument for that last one. Despite it not being true, u could have easily convinced other of it based on what I've been saying. But the "Floyd fan" comment... Lol u picked the wrong one

One thing that you "unbiased fans" failed to point out and continuously ignore, is the consistent demolition of all of Pac's recent opponents. Bigger and stronger opponents, some of whom were avoided by some fighters. Bigger and stronger opponents, most of whom were not humiliated in their previous fights but were against Pac.

Lol, this is what happens when u call me a "bias Floyd fan". This whole entire paragraph is completely irrelevant. I already said Pac is world class. It doesn't shock me that he beat the people he did, its how much credit he gets for those specific wins. Cotto was a good win. Clottey was a tune-up. Mosley IS shot. Marquez is a lightweight... Lets stay on topic here.

One thing I try to avoid though, and that is, to distort the facts to suit my arguments.

Yes, your right, u don't distort facts to suit ur arguments. However u do display pretty weak evidence. Going by what people "say" as if man is incapable of lying. That's not a strong defense

Btw, you are right about Richardson. With regards to Mosley, I was merely showing that this was not a shot Mosley, but the same Mosley that Floyd fought, and maybe even a better conditioned Mosley.

But u said in ur "these r Floyd's best welterweight wins" comment that Mosley was shot/old...

[tatangb45]

There's a reason I separated all my replies into paragraphs. So that its much easier for u to refute each point separately. Don't be a coward. There's nothing wrong with an endless debate as long as it stays friendly. As of right now, I'm getting this impression that you're ducking the conversation because ur intimidated... Prove me wrong



Lol, so ur going by what De La Hoya said before the fight and touting it as fact? Lol so De La Hoya "The PROMOTER" is incapable of lying in order to sell a fight I guess... Its funny u should mention that, becuz if u were to ask De La Hoya NOW if he was dehydrated I guarantee he'd say "yes". I bet if that were the case, all of a sudden De La Hoya would be a chronic liar. Am I right?

Fighters, Promoters, Trainer, Managers... All those guys will lie through their teeth in order to sell a fight... Lol, I would love for u to prove this is opinion and not fact.

Edwin Valero (who claimed to be the one that gave De La Hoya the black eye during sparring) said De La Hoya was absolute shyt in sparring and it didn't surprise him at all that he was TKO'd by Pac. Is Edwin Valero not just trustworthy, if not, more so then De La Hoya?



Lol... Yeah sure it doesn't "automatically" I suppose... There certainly other possibilities to consider sure... Like for example, he did it on purpose becuz he wanted to feel weak... Lol a guy that rehydrates to 165+ when weighing in at 154, rehydrating to 147 when weighing in at 145 is not healthy. 2 lbs of water. A normal person needs a MINIMUM of 1 gallon of water a day. Go ask yourself how much 1 gallon of water weighs. Now think about how much rehydration a professional boxer, that just recently lost 9lbs from his regular weigh-in weight would need (taking into mind, most fighter's "weigh-in weights" are rarely ever there most comfortable weight, and they tend to dehydrate themselves to make that weigh-in weight)?

He was DEHYDRATED... FACT!!!

I'll even ignore "weight drained" just becuz u make that one a little more difficult to prove outside of the obvious eye test.



Did u see his fight with Steve Forbes? In any case, along with he was not in his prime, and was close to being shot... Then add the DEHYDRATION part.



This doesn't prove he wasn't dehydrated... Just becuz Nacho admits Pacquiao was faster doesn't prove anything other than that Pacquiao was faster. Pacquiao could EASILY (and indeed was) be faster than a DEHYDRATED DE LA HOYA right?



Lol, then do it!!!!!!



Pac's welterweight resume, keep that in mind. More so that its "overrated" then it sucks.



Broken record at this point. I've proven u wrong on this, I feel. I'd like u to refute if u can.



Real quick, real quick... QUOTE ME EXACTLY where it shows that I am a bias Floyd fan... Lol, I just want u to understand, on the "off chance" that u fail to do so, since its so plainly obvious that I am, all that will show is that u, like MOST OTHER bias Pac fans, need to find a more direct excuse not to bother (AKA to DUCK) conversing like a gentlemen.

Its either I am a Floyd fan and therefore bias, and downplay Floyd's rival's achievements just to make Floyd look better (it just so happens Floyd's rival is Pac). Or I'm a Pac-Hater and bias, in which case I am negative against all Pac's achievements just becuz I don't like him. You'd actually have an argument for that last one. Despite it not being true, u could have easily convinced other of it based on what I've been saying. But the "Floyd fan" comment... Lol u picked the wrong one



Lol, this is what happens when u call me a "bias Floyd fan". This whole entire paragraph is completely irrelevant. I already said Pac is world class. It doesn't shock me that he beat the people he did, its how much credit he gets for those specific wins. Cotto was a good win. Clottey was a tune-up. Mosley IS shot. Marquez is a lightweight... Lets stay on topic here.



Yes, your right, u don't distort facts to suit ur arguments. However u do display pretty weak evidence. Going by what people "say" as if man is incapable of lying. That's not a strong defense



But u said in ur "these r Floyd's best welterweight wins" comment that Mosley was shot/old...

Again, and this is becoming repetitious, you are still missing the point. What I have been pointing out is, your diatribes are not facts. They are opinions, same as mine. Get it?
Who has a better argument is not the premise of our debate. I say it's mine, you say it's yours, then we proceed and argue endlessly. I presented my opinions to show you that your "FACTS" can be refuted, ergo, they are not "FACTS".

On this basis, saying that it is cowardly and a duck to avoid countering your arguments is false and a weak attempt to aggrandize yourself. Continuing to refute your arguments is pointless because that is not my purpose in the first place. Again, my objective is to show you that your alleged facts are not facts but opinions.

Just to show you what I think of your "FACTS, take a look at the following:

Some of your arguments are not even factual. By saying that boxers, trainers, etc would lie to promote a fight implies that Nacho's statements were made for that purpose. They were not pre-fight, they were in fact said during the fight and after.

Some are misleading. Using Steve Forbes to bolster your opinion is, once again, weak. The guy, like what I previously pointed out, was the type of boxer suited for DLH's style, a less mobile, stand in front fighter. A very different fighter and much inferior compared to Pac. The fight was also at a CW of 150 lbs., just three lbs. above the Pac/DLH fight. Lastly, this example you gave, had seven losses out of his last ten fights. Some very obvious omissions to obscure the facts. You unbiased? Definitely not.

The rest of your arguments? Read them yourself and see if these are not just opinions.

As far your claim that Pac's WW resume is weak, show me somebody at WW in the last 10/15 years, including Floyd, who had better wins than Pac. If you can manage to credibly find one, then you have an argument. OK?

[tatangb45]

Again, and this is becoming repetitious, you are still missing the point. What I have been pointing out is, your diatribes are not facts. They are opinions, same as mine. Get it?
Who has a better argument is not the premise of our debate. I say it's mine, you say it's yours, then we proceed and argue endlessly. I presented my opinions to show you that your "FACTS" can be refuted, ergo, they are not "FACTS".

On this basis, saying that it is cowardly and a duck to avoid countering your arguments is false and a weak attempt to aggrandize yourself. Continuing to refute your arguments is pointless because that is not my purpose in the first place. Again, my objective is to show you that your alleged facts are not facts but opinions.

Just to show you what I think of your "FACTS, take a look at the following:

Some of your arguments are not even factual. By saying that boxers, trainers, etc would lie to promote a fight implies that Nacho's statements were made for that purpose. They were not pre-fight, they were in fact said during the fight and after.

Some are misleading. Using Steve Forbes to bolster your opinion is, once again, weak. The guy, like what I previously pointed out, was the type of boxer suited for DLH's style, a less mobile, stand in front fighter. A very different fighter and much inferior compared to Pac. The fight was also at a CW of 150 lbs., just three lbs. above the Pac/DLH fight. Lastly, this example you gave, had seven losses out of his last ten fights. Some very obvious omissions to obscure the facts. You unbiased? Definitely not.

The rest of your arguments? Read them yourself and see if these are not just opinions.

As far your claim that Pac's WW resume is weak, show me somebody at WW in the last 10/15 years, including Floyd, who had better wins than Pac. If you can manage to credibly find one, then you have an argument. OK?

I stand corrected. I should have limited the comparison starting from the year 2000, where Pac was voted fighter of the decade, and not the last 15 years. DLH had a better resume when he was at WW in the nineties. We have to wait until Pac retires to see who will end up with a better resume.

[jrosales13]

You can go ahead and eat that dick yourself dude. It was big because it was a Manny-Oscar fight, but what transpired was a one sided beating of an old man that generated no excitement except for the 'tards like yourself, and the Oscar haters, like yourself.

The way Floyd beat Gatti was more impressive, and Gatti was coming off wins and activity, not losses and inactivity.

The way Floyd beat Gatti? WTF are you talking about?

What was the belief in going into the Pac-Oscar fight?

Why did the Pac-Oscar fight take place in the first place?

Yea eat a dick if you don't like due justice and enjoyed one of the greatest night boxing history, faggot.

[Piper the Great]

some of yall just dont like to give credit.

Oscar.. he picked on Pac and Pac give it to him.
Cotto.. that was a great win.
Clottey.. i never was impressed with him to begin with
Marg.. was a good win
Mosley.. was a terrible fight.

3-2 for me

[JDezi4]

some of yall just dont like to give credit.

Oscar.. he picked on Pac and Pac give it to him.
Cotto.. that was a great win.
Clottey.. i never was impressed with him to begin with
Marg.. was a good win
Mosley.. was a terrible fight.

3-2 for me

Margarito... Not at welterweight

[JDezi4]

Again, and this is becoming repetitious, you are still missing the point. What I have been pointing out is, your diatribes are not facts. They are opinions, same as mine. Get it?
Who has a better argument is not the premise of our debate. I say it's mine, you say it's yours, then we proceed and argue endlessly. I presented my opinions to show you that your "FACTS" can be refuted, ergo, they are not "FACTS".

Lol... R u doing this on purpose...? Saying that over and over as if that's all u have to do to prove me wrong? Obviously I get it or I wouldn't be spending the last 5 or so comments asking u to prove it.

My whole point in replying was to point out that not all of what I said is opinion, in fact a very small number of it is. That's when I asked u to show me which ones were just opinion... U attempted that, and failed, especially about De La Hoya... I've been giving u other chances to do it, but u insist on taking the cowards way out, saying "lets agree to disagree".

The subject of this argument is not something that we merely disagree on. It can't be ur opinion that my facts r just opinions. If u truly believe that, than u have a shockingly low understanding of what an opinion is.

On this basis, saying that it is cowardly and a duck to avoid countering your arguments is false and a weak attempt to aggrandize yourself. Continuing to refute your arguments is pointless because that is not my purpose in the first place. Again, my objective is to show you that your alleged facts are not facts but opinions.

Funny thing about this is I'm trying to prove that the bold is wrong... Its funny how u can get that from ur prospective, but not mine. I'm not even using that many big words.

Let me break it down: Right now all I want u to do is prove that what I said is just bias opinion... That's what I continue insisting that you do... If u wanna be lazy, and/or cowardly, and not do, then that's on u, but honestly ur missing out an a major learning experience becuz u really appear to need one bad

Just to show you what I think of your "FACTS, take a look at the following:

Some of your arguments are not even factual. By saying that boxers, trainers, etc would lie to promote a fight implies that Nacho's statements were made for that purpose. They were not pre-fight, they were in fact said during the fight and after.

Lol... I never said Nacho's statements were used to sell the fight. I find it funny that u used that specific statement to refute that specific comment of mine, becuz that's not what I said about that remark. Therefore, get down from ur high horse, u messed up again... You r wrong, that's a fact.

And not to mention, r u telling me that fighter, promoters, and trainers DON'T lie to hype a fight? That's just naive

Some are misleading. Using Steve Forbes to bolster your opinion is, once again, weak. The guy, like what I previously pointed out, was the type of boxer suited for DLH's style, a less mobile, stand in front fighter. A very different fighter and much inferior compared to Pac. The fight was also at a CW of 150 lbs., just three lbs. above the Pac/DLH fight. Lastly, this example you gave, had seven losses out of his last ten fights. Some very obvious omissions to obscure the facts. You unbiased? Definitely.

This paragraph was just embarrassing. I can just read the confidence u had clearly while typing this.

You'll notice after mentioning Forbes, I mentioned that De La Hoya was on an obvious decline in that fight. Which means he's not gonna get any better dropping weight and DEHYDRATING HIMSELF to fight Pacquiao, which emphasizes how the Pacquiao win is overrated.

Lol I now notice what ur doing. The reason why ur trying to summarize my arguments inferiority by using specific example is becuz u r selecting specific things I said, mixing and matching, and contorting them to suit your needs lol... Didn't u say something about how u "don't" do that... Well that's what ur doing now. Ironic. And I changed that last sentence so that its more accurate.

Do me a favor and take the time to respond to each of my comments so that u can make a valid argument, or so that u can discover that there's no valid arguments to make. It at least shows me that ur actually reading my comments, and not just sitting on an imaginary high horse based on what u "think" I'm saying, or what u "want" me to be saying, which is a pathetic thing to do, don't u agree?

The rest of your arguments? Read them yourself and see if these are not just opinions.

Lol, don't pass it on to me. Ur the one making the claim, why don't u do it? Again, this is clearly ducking... And this is now the third time in a row u did it

As far your claim that Pac's WW resume is weak, show me somebody at WW in the last 10/15 years, including Floyd, who had better wins than Pac. If you can manage to credibly find one, then you have an argument. OK?

First of all, why would u want me to include Floyd? Lol... Again, that just the bias Pacquiao fan (still trying not to call u a *******, although ur pushing it) trying to weaken my credibility by making me out to be a "bias" fan. I'm not being bias... I'm not showing disdain for Pacquiao all I'm doing is speaking my opinion about his welterweight resume based around FACTS about his opponents in each of those fights. I've yet to give u a reason to even mention Floyd in my presence, so why do u keep bringing him up?

Second of all, Miguel Cotto's is better. Zab Judah, Joshua Clottey, and Shane Mosley (a far better Shane Mosley). Don't get it twisted, Joshua Clottey is a good fight for Cotto becuz Cotto doesn't have a stylistic advantage over him. Pacquiao made Cotto look ordinary, so what did u expect him to do with someone that "Mr Ordinary" just beat? That's the difference... I WILL BET YOU MONEY that your gonna use that comment as an "example" in ur next reply.... ignoring the valid point I made defending it... And let me tell u now I KNOW THAT THAT IS JUST AN OPINION... Now let's see what u can do with it...

In the end, this whole entire paragraph is useless anyone... Having the "best" resume out of everyone fighting now does not by any means make his resume "great". All that means is that everyone else resume is weak