Lil g is the biggest coward known to mankind. let's hope Canelo,Jacobs ignore him

Bingo. Also the funny thing is he has no idea that the WBC was formed only in the 1960's yet complained about fighters from the 30's and he doesn't even know what the WBA used to be called and when. Then again why would and should he? He openly mocks the sports history and has no interest in it and dismisses people who've got enough love and respect for the sport to study it. I always get a kick out of people trying to tell people who's great and not great in an all-time sense yet openly admit to knowing or caring nothing about it. That probably is why he's been here a year, posts a lot and is still in the red. Worthless views and pointless drivel in every post. Here you are failing to understand what a hyperbole is again :lol1: Since you want to shift focus on the sanctioning bodies and the amount of weight classes lets take a look at the 130-154 divisions and when they were recognized by a major sanctioning body. 130: 1959 135: 1886 140: 1959 147: 1914 154: 1962 So since the 1960's there were two major sanctioning bodies (WBA WBC) Then in the 80's the IBF and WBO came a long. What year did floyd turn pro in? 1998. Damn, you just keep on embarrassing yourself. Somehow the man who's faced the most champions in boxing was ruining the sport. You keep on going off on tangents yet can't exmplain how he was ruining the sport and you can't name anyone who's faced more champions Lmfao :usa:

You have to factor in that with these extra weight classes there are more title holders available to fight. If the present title holders were fighting under the old weight classes most of them would just be contenders. So if you are saying in the modern era he's fought more world champs fine. To say more in the history of boxing is techically correct but actually misleading. Bingo. Also the funny thing is he has no idea that the WBC was formed only in the 1960's yet complained about fighters from the 30's and he doesn't even know what the WBA used to be called and when. Then again why would and should he? He openly mocks the sports history and has no interest in it and dismisses people who've got enough love and respect for the sport to study it. I always get a kick out of people trying to tell people who's great and not great in an all-time sense yet openly admit to knowing or caring nothing about it. That probably is why he's been here a year, posts a lot and is still in the red. Worthless views and pointless drivel in every post.

What I wanted was for him to say something that disproved my overall point. And he failed because even when you only count the two oldest sanctioning bodies I'm still right :rofl: :rofl: Instead he went on a tangent that had nothing to do with my overall point. It's a shame that idiots try and say the guy who fought the most world champs in boxing was ruining the sport but then defend people like Bob arum and try to make everything about race. Pathetic :rofl: You have to factor in that with these extra weight classes there are more title holders available to fight. If the present title holders were fighting under the old weight classes most of them would just be contenders. So if you are saying in the modern era he's fought more world champs fine. To say more in the history of boxing is techically correct but actually misleading.

What I am talking about is the history of boxing. You wanted it you got it so stop complaining that he's using it. What I wanted was for him to say something that disproved my overall point. And he failed because even when you only count the two oldest sanctioning bodies I'm still right :rofl: :rofl: Instead he went on a tangent that had nothing to do with my overall point. It's a shame that idiots try and say the guy who fought the most world champs in boxing was ruining the sport but then defend people like Bob arum and try to make everything about race. Pathetic :rofl:

Floyd fighting the most champions in the history of boxing is an actual fact though. That guy is just going off on tangents because he has autisim. Get real So wtf are you talking about?? :lol1: What I am talking about is the history of boxing. You wanted it you got it so stop complaining that he's using it.

I remember his fans killing Sergio Martinez with one leg for not fighting him. I remember them killing Billy Joe Saunders for not fighting him but then he signed the fight and they tuck tails waiting on Canelo. This dude was trying to get big pay days not make the best fights. He could have moved up to fight Ward on PPV after stating he would fight anybody between 154-168. Hes probably a HOF fighter but hes a liar just like most of these boxers. He didn't sign anything to my knowledge. Are your referring to the PR stunt Saunders pulled showing an email from Loffler as "signing a contract"

Hold your horses. You're the guy who set the tone of the debate by saying in the "history of boxing". He's responding by giving you the history of boxing and now your complaining about old fighters.. Get real. LOL exactly. This clown claims to be above people who actually bothered to read about the history and has seen thousands of old fights with his knowledge and grasp of history simply by dismissing it with claims of someone else "wanting to appear knowledgeable", yet he claimed all of the fighters listed fought in the 1930's when none of them did like Napoles who fought in the 60's and 70s. He started watching boxing around 2007/2008 and ignores everything prior to 1996 yet still tries to act like an authority on the sport and it's history. Typical fanboy who can't name half of the hall of fame and has probably seen only highlights of just a handful. I encounter these fake fans/fanboys all the time.

BJS is much more relevant at 160 than Charlo and Andrade both combined. He vacated his belt, he's unbeaten and more tested. If he's irrelevant because he cheated, then so is your boy Clenelo, the man GGG is supposed to chase for a third fight with a CHarlo mando fight in your agenda. See how you're not making any sense at all? SO listen, we are not having a fair, reasonable discussion. You're just a hater and your opinions became pointless to me. Welcome to my ignore list. Have a nice day. But Saunders isn't a champion, so why would GGG fight him? Where did I post he was irrelevant because he cheated? So you lie about what I posted then run because GGG will not fight Charlo and I asked you to call him out for that same as you did the guys that didn't fight GGG? OK, Just goes to show you what GGG fans are really like.

Hold your horses. You're the guy who set the tone of the debate by saying in the "history of boxing". He's responding by giving you the history of boxing and now your complaining about old fighters.. Get real. Floyd fighting the most champions in the history of boxing is an actual fact though. That guy is just going off on tangents because he has autisim. Get real So wtf are you talking about?? :lol1:

Stopped reading after the 1st sentence. I'm not gonna waste my time on someone who doesn't understand what a hyperbole is. Just keep being that guy who lists these old fighters to appear more knowledgeable than you actually are and keep being that guy who thinks the sport hasn't evolved for the better. I confronted you with a FACT and you just ignored it by talking about these old fighters again. It's telling when you do that and try to defend a weirdo like "Boxing Logic" who tries to make everything about race. :rofl: :rofl: Hold your horses. You're the guy who set the tone of the debate by saying in the "history of boxing". He's responding by giving you the history of boxing and now your complaining about old fighters.. Get real.

LOL thanks for AGAIN confirming you are a casual and have never even heard of some well known all-time greats much less even seen them fight. LOL at advancing for the better too. You really think Berto is a better and more accomplished boxer than Jose Napoles, Eder Jofre or Carlos Monzon? Haha like a said a typical noobie fanboy. Pick up a book or even just go onto youtube. Boxing has a great history and your fanoyism is not allowing you to appreciate it. What 1930's fighter did I mention again? You probably don't even know who Salvador Sanchez is and when he fought yet you profess to be above all fans. Here you are going off on tangents again, did you forget to take your meds today? I presented "boxing logic" with a fact that Floyd fought the most Champions in boxing history (even if you only count the WBA and WBC) and has faced plenty of future HOF's. Which proves that his stance that he "ruined" boxing is a fcking joke. He also then decided to defend arum in the same post, which is just hilarious considering his history in preventing big fights, keeping fights in house and fcking over his own fighters. "boxing logic" also tried to blame everything on race which is a joke in itself. You then replied talking about these old fighters even though it doesn't disprove anything that I said and you're only doing it to appear knowledgeable when it's not applicable to anything that i was arguing against Step up your reading comprehension, it's truly embarrassing.

I remember his fans killing Sergio Martinez with one leg for not fighting him. I remember them killing Billy Joe Saunders for not fighting him but then he signed the fight and they tuck tails waiting on Canelo. This dude was trying to get big pay days not make the best fights. He could have moved up to fight Ward on PPV after stating he would fight anybody between 154-168. Hes probably a HOF fighter but hes a liar just like most of these boxers.

The 1st 2 fights are not happening next and you know it. GGG hasn't said he wants to go to 168.SO the last 3 fights are not realistic. He said he wants a 3rd Canelo fight. The easiest way to position yourself for that is beat Charlo and become the mando opponent for the WBC belt. Why would you fight Saunders, a drug cheat with no title, over Charlo? The best options available are either Andrade or Charlo, the 2 fights he seems most reluctant to make. BJS is much more relevant at 160 than Charlo and Andrade both combined. He vacated his belt, he's unbeaten and more tested. If he's irrelevant because he cheated, then so is your boy Clenelo, the man GGG is supposed to chase for a third fight with a CHarlo mando fight in your agenda. See how you're not making any sense at all? SO listen, we are not having a fair, reasonable discussion. You're just a hater and your opinions became pointless to me. Welcome to my ignore list. Have a nice day.

Stopped reading after the 1st sentence. I'm not gonna waste my time on someone who doesn't understand what a hyperbole is. Just keep being that guy who lists these old fighters to appear more knowledgeable than you actually are and keep being that guy who thinks the sport hasn't evolved for the better. I confronted you with a FACT and you just ignored it by talking about these old fighters again. It's telling when you do that and try to defend a weirdo like "Boxing Logic" who tries to make everything about race. :rofl: :rofl: LOL thanks for AGAIN confirming you are a casual and have never even heard of some well known all-time greats much less even seen them fight. LOL at advancing for the better too. You really think Berto is a better and more accomplished boxer than Jose Napoles, Eder Jofre or Carlos Monzon? Haha like a said a typical noobie fanboy. Pick up a book or even just go onto youtube. Boxing has a great history and your fanoyism is not allowing you to appreciate it. What 1930's fighter did I mention again? You probably don't even know who Salvador Sanchez is and when he fought yet you profess to be above all fans.

LOL, you just exposed yourself. Rodriguez, Griffith and Napoles were 60's and 70's fighters LOL. You have never seen any of them fight correct? Quiz me on any of those fights and I can explain what happens or something unique I'm sure. I'd be curious if I listed 20 all-time greats from the 1950-1970's if you could recognize their face or even have seen them fight. I doubt it. What 1930's fighter did I just mention? None of them fought in the 1930's and why wouldn't I, as a boxing fan research and watch content of Charles, Robinson, Napoles, Rodriguez etc;? They are all-time greats and I enjoy the sport. I've collected close to 10,000 fights and spent a lot of money into books and rare footage over 20 years. I still to this day watch on average 4-5 hours a week of old footage and read as much as possible. Why wouldn't I? What would be the benefit of saying I do "to appear knowledgeable"? Do you just ignore the past to appear un-knowledgeable? You are a casual noobie fan who just ignores anything pre Floyd's career because that's the fighter that got you into the sport and you don't appreciate or love the sport enough to do research or watch old films. Stopped reading after the 1st sentence. I'm not gonna waste my time on someone who doesn't understand what a hyperbole is. Just keep being that guy who lists these old fighters to appear more knowledgeable than you actually are and keep being that guy who thinks the sport hasn't evolved for the better. I confronted you with a FACT and you just ignored it by talking about these old fighters again. It's telling when you do that and try to defend a weirdo like "Boxing Logic" who tries to make everything about race. :rofl: :rofl:

I'm giving him a pass because there are 7 options around better in terms of Legacy wise and even maybe Money wise. Nelo Jacobs Andrade BJS stripped or not Benavidez Smith Ucaztegui So I dunno how Charlo is the most logic option for GGG. The 1st 2 fights are not happening next and you know it. GGG hasn't said he wants to go to 168.SO the last 3 fights are not realistic. He said he wants a 3rd Canelo fight. The easiest way to position yourself for that is beat Charlo and become the mando opponent for the WBC belt. Why would you fight Saunders, a drug cheat with no title, over Charlo? The best options available are either Andrade or Charlo, the 2 fights he seems most reluctant to make.

Bro just stop. I just read your first paragraph and can already tell you're full of ****. Even if you only count the WBA and the WBC (the two oldest sanctioning bodies) floyd STILL has faced and beat the most champions in the history of boxing. Keep on listing fighters from the 1930's even though you have never watched them fight nor know much about them. You only name these guys to appear more knowledgeable. :lol1: :lol1: LOL, you just exposed yourself. Rodriguez, Griffith and Napoles were 60's and 70's fighters LOL. You have never seen any of them fight correct? Quiz me on any of those fights and I can explain what happens or something unique I'm sure. I'd be curious if I listed 20 all-time greats from the 1950-1970's if you could recognize their face or even have seen them fight. I doubt it. What 1930's fighter did I just mention? None of them fought in the 1930's and why wouldn't I, as a boxing fan research and watch content of Charles, Robinson, Napoles, Rodriguez etc;? They are all-time greats and I enjoy the sport. I've collected close to 10,000 fights and spent a lot of money into books and rare footage over 20 years. I still to this day watch on average 4-5 hours a week of old footage and read as much as possible. Why wouldn't I? What would be the benefit of saying I do "to appear knowledgeable"? Do you just ignore the past to appear un-knowledgeable? You are a casual noobie fan who just ignores anything pre Floyd's career because that's the fighter that got you into the sport and you don't appreciate or love the sport enough to do research or watch old films.

Kind of a hollow claim when in modern boxing there are between 68 and 102 "champions" at one time. Typical of a noobie fan to talk this way. I think Floyd has fought some good fighters, two great (JMM and Pac and we know they were much smaller and past their best) but you wouldn't give more credence to Harry Greb, for example with 13 hall of famers beat for roughly 40 victories? Or Robinson for beating 11 hall of famers for roughly 30-40 victories, similar for the likes of Ezzard Charles, Sam Langford etc; etc; etc;? Bottom line it's much easier to be a world champion today than it was in other generations no matter how little you have researched those eras. On the flip side Floyd has never beaten even one man who's been an undisputed champion which he also hasn't been. Do you believe Andre Berto, Carlos Baldomir etc; to be equal or more legit than say Jose Napoles, Luis Rodriguez, Emile Griffith for example? Welterweight fighters you probably should know and there's footage of them available looking much better than everything on Floy'd resume. Do you think it was harder to fight more world champions in previous era's with 8, then 10, then 12 then 24 championships available vs. the almost 100 of today? You also show hypocrisy there defending Floyd for not hurting boxing when you then attack Arum who's been a part of making some of the biggest events in the last 50 years of boxing. Arum is no angel but nor is Floyd. You are very biased just as you are when you discriminate foreign fighters. It's ok to support one's own but to discriminate others is not super cool. Bro just stop. I just read your first paragraph and can already tell you're full of ****. Even if you only count the WBA and the WBC (the two oldest sanctioning bodies) floyd STILL has faced and beat the most champions in the history of boxing. Keep on listing fighters from the 1930's even though you have never watched them fight nor know much about them. You only name these guys to appear more knowledgeable. You're one of those guys who think the sport hasn't evolved and think those old fighters are way superior. :lol1: :lol1:

Lmao the man who fought the most champions in the history of boxing was "ruining the sport" you can't make this **** up. :lol1: But the man who prevented the biggest fight of all time from Happening at the right time wasn't "ruining the sport". Event though he has a history of keeping fighters in house and preventing fights from happening. :rofl: Weirdos like yourself always have to make everything about race too. Which is why you guys rather become hardcore supporters of eastern euro's or other foreigners and root against top American fighters Pathetic :rofl: Kind of a hollow claim when in modern boxing there are between 68 and 102 "champions" at one time. Typical of a noobie fan to talk this way. I think Floyd has fought some good fighters, two great (JMM and Pac and we know they were much smaller and past their best) but you wouldn't give more credence to Harry Greb, for example with 13 hall of famers beat for roughly 40 victories? Or Robinson for beating 11 hall of famers for roughly 30-40 victories, similar for the likes of Ezzard Charles, Sam Langford etc; etc; etc;? Bottom line it's much easier to be a world champion today than it was in other generations no matter how little you have researched those eras. On the flip side Floyd has never beaten even one man who's been an undisputed champion which he also hasn't been. Do you believe Andre Berto, Carlos Baldomir etc; to be equal or more legit than say Jose Napoles, Luis Rodriguez, Emile Griffith for example? Welterweight fighters you probably should know and there's footage of them available looking much better than everything on Floy'd resume. Do you think it was harder to fight more world champions in previous era's with 8, then 10, then 12 then 24 championships available vs. the almost 100 of today? You also show hypocrisy there defending Floyd for not hurting boxing when you then attack Arum who's been a part of making some of the biggest events in the last 50 years of boxing. Arum is no angel but nor is Floyd. You are very biased just as you are when you discriminate foreign fighters. It's ok to support one's own but to discriminate others is not super cool.

Some of you guys have issues, its hilariuos. GGG still the most dominant figure in boxing and threads like this make it 100% clear. Not a single active US fighter gets even close to GGGs popularity. The most dominant fighter in his prime, the most avoided fighter in his prime, the most defenses of his MW title. Was fighting in the amateurs till age 25 and was champion and won medals from 140-160lb (4 weightclasses). Only when he was past prime the opponents came out of their holes and dared to challenge him and GGG still won in the eyes of the public and boxing fans. Only corruption was able to defeat one of the best Middleweights ever and some of you fools obviously diggride corruption because it suits your agenda and racism.