Why does Floyd never have mandatories?

Collapse
Collapse
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Vladimir303
    303
    Super Champion - 5,000-10,000 posts
    • May 2007
    • 6067
    • 398
    • 276
    • 12,727

    #101
    Originally posted by Tunney5
    Come now, Hatton had his two previous fights at light welterweight!

    Ranking Hatton at #1 welterweight when he'd only had one pro fight at 147 was just the WBC catering to the whims of their beloved Floyd!
    I don't see what the fuss is with you guy. Are you that much into alphabet soups? They're just sanctioning body titles. Who gives a **** who the mandatory is. Great fighters get together if they wanna get together to make history...........forget these ****** titles they have today.

    Glen Johnson and Antonion Tarver both vacated their light-heavy titles in order to fight each other and they were considered the best at that weight back then.

    Comment

    • Vladimir303
      303
      Super Champion - 5,000-10,000 posts
      • May 2007
      • 6067
      • 398
      • 276
      • 12,727

      #102
      Originally posted by xAUGUSTUSx
      Your point is? He's still a pro fighter that is supposed to be a champion. It's called boxing not Mayweather. Since when were the rules changed for him. Do you know what mandatory means? Hatton was'nt really a mandatory because he was not a welterweight. He phony over night ranking as a 147er. Berto is Floyd Mandatory and yes I would love to see him fight Floyd, Who would'nt?. Here's you and Floyd togetherforever. lol ***z
      **** mandatories. Why are you making up new **** to get on floyd about. If you wanna be a Floyd critic, get at him for not fighting Cotto. I can respect BUT THIS NONSENSE. Andre Berto? You think Berto wants to enforce his mandatory. They got him fighting journeymen still to gain experience. He won't be ready for another year for the bigtime. That shows your lack of boxing knowledge following the sanctioning bodies.

      Where do mutants like this come from?

      Comment

      • guzi815
        Undisputed Champion
        Platinum Champion - 1,000-5,000 posts
        • Mar 2005
        • 1086
        • 78
        • 62
        • 7,585

        #103
        Originally posted by javelin_fangs
        Cotto also got seriously hurt against every single one of those guys. A KO when you lose rounds isn't better than a one-sided UD. All it means is that you have more power and/or fought the guys after they were on their downside. Whatever though man...convince yourself whatever you want to believe. That just means when/if Floyd ever does fight and beat Cotto it's going to hurt you folks that much more.
        ay, that's cool you feel that way youngin! but you might want to re-think what you said. You do not see the perserverance, when you are getting rocked, and dig deep, show your dedication and burn desire to win.... and bounce back to KO your opponent! That is dramatic...people will talk about those types of fights. And just for the record little bro, when Trinidad lost to Hopkins, I gave B'Hop much props. Even though Tito was too small for a Middle Weight. Last but not least....Floyd can "WIN" against Cotto only one way....."POT SHOTING"! That is it...no way Mayweather "beats" Cotto, as in fighting, brawling, tagging, actually ****ing in the ring! Should Mayweather "win" Cotto, it's ala Carlos Baldomir baout..."HIT...and RUN"!

        Comment

        Working...
        TOP