Yeah, not really.
lol how is this not really? you either beat the champ or there wasnt a champ and you beat the 1st or 2nd rated fighter. You cannot become lineal champ by beating nobody
I would favor Mike Tyson in his prime against every top heavyweight in the last 60 years except for Vitali Klitschko and Muhammad Ali.
I'd throw Foreman in there
I dont think Corrales was overrated, Floyd was just that good. Floyd wasnt underrated at the time either. I can see the comparison with everybody thinking it would be competitive but it turning out to be lopsided though
I dont have a preference. I just like highly skilled guys that go out and try to fight the best. Lomachenko and Chocolatito have multiple losses and are two of my favorites.. I also love Inoue and Teofimo who have no losses. All the top welterweights are wack to me regardless if they have losses or not.
And unless Spence becomes undisputed at WW or unifies a couple belts at SWW, Bud's career accomplishments at 140 trumps his.
This generation of welterweights is weak. So he needs Crawford to elevate his resume. And I know Super Lightweight was weak when Bud unified, but he was still undisputed in a time when that's super rare.
Who has either actually beat lol? Lomachencko does have a better resume than Crawford and Loma's resume is complete **** for a p4p top fighter.
How is it complete ****? Wasnt Russell, Walters, Sosa, Martinez all top ranked fighters when he fought them?
What's controversial about it? His corner pulled him out. Makes no difference how it happened. It only matters when the referee or doctor stops a fight.
if he couldnt continue because of a headbutt, it wouldnt be a TKO.. the fight wouldve went to the cards
the missed call robbed him of a chance to win the fight
I felt Martinez won 7-5.. If it wouldve been scored a draw, I wouldve had no problem with it, but I feel theres no way you can score 7 rounds for Paul.
But it was a close fight so he wasnt robbed in that sense, however one of the judges obviously wasnt being fair by scoring it 118-110 for Paul. This put Martinez at a disadvantage because he had to win on both the other judges cards where as Paul only had to win one outta the two. If there was an unbiased judge who knows how he wouldve scored it, so yeah Martinez was robbed of a fair decision.
edit: everything was pretty much said already..
Another loss for Broner. Every time he gets in the ring with a good fighter he loses, Maidana, Porter, Mikey Garcia.
He loss to Maidana then he wins against (3) bums like Carlos Molina, Emmanuel Taylor, John Molina Jr. Then he loses to Shawn Porter and wins against (3) bums again, Khabib Allakhverdiev, Ashley Theophane, Adrian Granados.
See the pattern. He will lose to Linares and go on to fight (3) bums and manipulate the boxing public like he is actually relevant again. And I’m hoping Linares knocks some sense in him. And Vargas has been begging for that rematch but Broner is supposed to be hood tough but he is a f@cking little punk. And Maidana was the 1st one that exposed his punk ass too. I would pay for him to be laid out like Khan has a fetish for.
I agree with you for the most part but Granados isnt a bum
"good chin' "heart" so basically a good loser is what he is? Paulie is a and will always be a "serve up" opponent for young fighters on the rise
lmao..but his losses are to who??
wtf at him having no chin.. y'all definitely dont know wtf y'all talkin about in here
I'm not gonna fault GGG for what appears to be a weak resume because the division was pretty weak when he was in his prime. He couldve got signature wins against Cotto and Sergio Martinez but they were on the decilne and didnt want the fight. Jacobs and Derevyachenko are great wins tho.