I just realized the worst thing that has happened because Floyd and Manny won't fight

[Bushbaby]

I believe that fighters can lose their prime in 1 fight.For example,Mildred Taylor lost his & probably became shot in that loss to Chavez.I also believe Cotto lost his at the hands of Margaresto.I don't believe that there is a fighter alive that takes flush shots from Mosley,Margaresto & Pacman & be prime.Cotto is still an elite fighter,but his best days are gone.

Now I didn't or wouldn't say that Ortiz is better than Cotto right now,but I would say that Ortiz belongs in any conversation concerning top welterweights.Also I believe that it's a myth that Floyd or Pacman are just too good for anyone around 147,140 & 154 included.My humle opinion.

[$tate of Mind]

How is cotto damaged goods when he would beat every WW out there bar Pac and mayweather. He has lost to the best fighter today and he is damaged goods? how the **** do u come to that conclusion?

I guess anybody who would beat cotto should not get any credit?

He lost to Margarito at WW.

[$tate of Mind]

The thing you fail to realize is that sometimes a loss/beatdown can change a fighters career. Look at Meldrick Taylor after the Chavez fight. Was Jones the same after losing to Tarver? Was Vargas the same after losing to Trinidad? Cotto isn't a shell of the fighter that he used to be pre Margarito. I thought the world of Cotto prior to the Margarito fight but now he's not the same guy. I can't see Cotto beating any elite opponents at this stage.

[bojangles1987]

The thing you fail to realize is that sometimes a loss/beatdown can change a fighters career. Look at Meldrick Taylor after the Chavez fight. Was Jones the same after losing to Tarver? Was Vargas the same after losing to Trinidad? Cotto isn't a shell of the fighter that he used to be pre Margarito. I thought the world of Cotto prior to the Margarito fight but now he's not the same guy. I can't see Cotto beating any elite opponents at this stage.

Cotto was just an example I used. I definitely do think Cotto from the night he fought Pacquiao is better than Ortiz, but that's just one example to show how the arguments about Pacquiao and Mayweather's opponents have delved over into involving and criticizing fighters unfairly. Cotto was a bum after losing to Margarito. Berto's a bum after losing to Ortiz. Dawson is a bum for losing to Pascal. Pascal's a bum after losing to Hopkins. Losses happen, sometimes they are devastating but more often they are just losses. If Mayweather were to lose to Ortiz, it wouldn't make Mayweather a bum that was shot, yet many would act that way.

This attitude has also put far too much credit and emphasis on young undefeated fighters. You know why most fighters are undefeated when they are young? They haven't run into someone that could beat them yet. When they do lose, it doesn't mean they automatically suck or were exposed or are leftovers or past prime or any bullcrap like that. It is just a loss, one that nearly every single ATG fighter has at least one of.

Hopkins was undefeated, but he wasn't prime when he lost to Roy. He wouldn't be prime for a few fights after that.

Pacquiao wasn't prime until he hit 126, and suffered two losses.

Glen Johnson wasn't prime until he had a ton of losses.

Froch is just now hitting his prime arguably, and he has a loss.

Wlad had three losses before he was prime.

I'm just tired of hearing how a guy is undefeated and young, so beating that guy means more than beating someone who is better but has losses. So many times it is a huge misconception.

[B.U.R.N.E.R]

You havent heard the news Paul Williams is now a bum.

[bojangles1987]

You havent heard the news Paul Williams is now a bum.

Yeah, he was a bum when he lost to Quintana. Because if you lose you are a bum. It's not that you had a night where someone was better.

[$tate of Mind]

Cotto was just an example I used. I definitely do think Cotto from the night he fought Pacquiao is better than Ortiz, but that's just one example to show how the arguments about Pacquiao and Mayweather's opponents have delved over into involving and criticizing fighters unfairly. Cotto was a bum after losing to Margarito. Berto's a bum after losing to Ortiz. Dawson is a bum for losing to Pascal. Pascal's a bum after losing to Hopkins. Losses happen, sometimes they are devastating but more often they are just losses. If Mayweather were to lose to Ortiz, it wouldn't make Mayweather a bum that was shot, yet many would act that way.

This attitude has also put far too much credit and emphasis on young undefeated fighters. You know why most fighters are undefeated when they are young? They haven't run into someone that could beat them yet. When they do lose, it doesn't mean they automatically suck or were exposed or are leftovers or past prime or any bullcrap like that. It is just a loss, one that nearly every single ATG fighter has at least one of.

Hopkins was undefeated, but he wasn't prime when he lost to Roy. He wouldn't be prime for a few fights after that.

Pacquiao wasn't prime until he hit 126, and suffered two losses.

Glen Johnson wasn't prime until he had a ton of losses.

Froch is just now hitting his prime arguably, and he has a loss.

Wlad had three losses before he was prime.

I'm just tired of hearing how a guy is undefeated and young, so beating that guy means more than beating someone who is better but has losses. So many times it is a huge misconception.

The thing is that there's a difference between suffering a loss and suffering a career changing defeat (this doesn't make them bums but lesser fighters than they were). Vargas was never the same after his loss to Tito. Haye and Berto lost their last fights but I don't think either of them suffered career changing loses or should be considered bums. As far as Cotto is concerned, we'll just have to wait and see what he looks like the next time that he faces an elite opponent.