If u are undefeated u fought no1,but if you lose you are a hype job or exposed??

great thread..which is it?

There's only been two hype jobs in recent memory is Berto and Ortiz..Neither was expose to me,seen um coming.. Yes exposed is an over used word and very ridiculous at that most times it's used..

The resume speaks for its self. If you are undefeated and fighting a bunch of bums or old past prime fighters with names, and or carefully hand picked opponents, well then the resume will do the talking. Damn what we say as fans. And getting KOd happens in this sport. To undefeated fighters and other great fighters. Doesnt expose the undefeated guy IMO. One punch can happen. Now a 12 round beat down is where being exposed comes in to play! Well Morales did beat Mannys ass over 12 rounds..even toyed with him in the 12th

Combat sports fans for you.

It's all subjective. If you're Mayweather and you're undefeated, you haven't fought anybody. If you're anyone else and undefeated, you're the best fighter in the world. If you're Matthysse and lose, you were robbed, robbed again, or lost only because you hurt your eye or the low blows. If you're Mares and you lose, you were an undeserving hype job. Forget the great run he had for the last 3 or 4 years.

There is no middle ground, when individuals want to hate they will flip their stance to accommodate the fighter.

Because boxing fans nitpick and refute every little thing

Bhop is the exception. You know why he has losses? Because he fights the best and you can't win them all but Hopkins has always come back and beaten top fighters in their prime

jusst look at mares first he was p4p then he gets koed and now he's a hypejob

Why you crying Larry? Your bff proved to be the best p4p fighter out there? Why you still mad?

So where is the middle ground here?seems like if you never lose poster claim you fought no1 or cherry picked..but when you do lose you are exposed or were a hype job....but then there are the exceptions..even when they lose the same posters have several excuses to why they lost and why they re still the better fighter...so which is it? That's the NSB way, you can never win, but you can never lose either.....what a web

So where is the middle ground here?seems like if you never lose poster claim you fought no1 or cherry picked..but when you do lose you are exposed or were a hype job....but then there are the exceptions..even when they lose the same posters have several excuses to why they lost and why they re still the better fighter...so which is it? Seems like everyone had a built in excuse,and refuses to give credit where it is due these days :lol1: @ Larry using an alt to create the thread and posting in it with his main account

Seems like everyone had a built in excuse,and refuses to give credit where it is due these days

Yeah, it's all bad right now. Danny/Lucas screwed up a lot o $h!t.