Whitttaker was much better than Mayweather ever was

[IMDAZED]

uh oh. i guess i lied, i will respond to this one. the bolded lines you brought up must have been the only ines you read, but's that's even better, because that goes to show you how people who can't really argue anything of significance when faced with logic responds, they resort to sarcasm. you, are just another example of such. but, thank you for your response, it was a perfect setup for me to end this with. and your little groupie who told me to end the argument, just adds the cheery to the ice cream, thank you too homeboy. now, for those who want to argue respectively, bring it.

In boxing, you compare fighters by quality of opposition - that is worth more than anything else. Or else any idiot who beat up chumps would be considered the best if his record looked good.

You, however, place less emphasis on that. Myself and others have pointed this out. So before YOU can even talk boxing, you need to understand what it's all about. it's obvious you don't know who Nelson and the like are...shouldn't you be more interested in finding out and spending less time creating handles with PBF in it?

[pbftxrs316]

He's saying that just because Floyd fought a "champion" doesn't make them Azumah Nelson. Or Julio Cesar Chavez, ok? And no one one Floyd fought comes close - not even De La Hoya, who hadn't had a big win in six years.

Maybe if you removed your head out of PBF's ass, you'd noticed that. At least change your handle - someone might take you seriously.

mother****er i know exactly what he meant, which is why i responded with what i did. and oscar not having a big win in six years when he beat a guy who beat a vernon forrest twice and held the wbc 154 title, at the highest wieght class he's been in ever, with all of the advantages going to oscar except skill level overall, goes to show me he beat a guy who had a big win just one year prior.

you would have been better off claiming oscar was a part time fighter then what you did. beating any champion is a ****ing big win jackass.

[IMDAZED]

mother****er i know exactly what he meant, which is why i responded with what i did. and oscar not having a big win in six years when he beat a guy who beat a vernon forrest twice and held the wbc 154 title, at the highest wieght class he's been in ever, with all of the advantages going to oscar except skill level overall, goes to show me he beat a guy who had a big win just one year prior.

you would have been better off claiming oscar was a part time fighter then what you did. beating any champion is a ****ing big win jackass.

LMAO at you. The guy who beat Vernon Forrest twice had beat him SIX YEARS AGO TOO!!!! He was finished too! And he fought Sturm and Hopkins AT MIDDLEWEIGHT YOU DUMMY!

[pbftxrs316]

In boxing, you compare fighters by quality of opposition - that is worth more than anything else. Or else any idiot who beat up chumps would be considered the best if his record looked good.

You, however, place less emphasis on that. Myself and others have pointed this out. So before YOU can even talk boxing, you need to understand what it's all about. it's obvious you don't know who Nelson and the like are...shouldn't you be more interested in finding out and spend less time creating handles with PBF in it?

that's funny, i already told you that i have pernell's whole career set, smd i do know what nelson accomplished and i also know who pernell performed against him, which it what i chose to emphasize on when comparing him to floyd, pernell's skillset and floyd's skillset. if you actua;;y read my posts instead of the line you bolded you would have seen this, but you'd rather be a little ****head and insult me, which means nothing when posting logic like i have done since i posted on this topic. i never claimed you little ****boy that you don't look at the level of competiton, i claimed you looked at how they performed more than who thay performed on, pay attention, you're not being assertive enough when you read my posts, you're focusing too much on certain lines that you don't agree with and responding to that. when you put two fighters in the ring against one another, they study how the fighter performed more than who they performed on. prime example, oscar de la hoya;s trainer freedie roach for the de la hoya/mayweather fight looking at how floyd performed more than him performing against corrales. that's what i meant. you study a fighter's style no matter who they fight against, their performance means more when you're fighting them than who they perfomred against, especially if your style is different than the fighter they fought in past, which pernell's style is to floyd and floyd's style is to pernell. the closest thing pernell has to a fighter he has fought with a style like floyd's was roger, and that isn't really close at all.

[IMDAZED]

that's funny, i already told you that i have pernell's whole career set, smd i do know what nelson accomplished and i also know who pernell performed against him, which it what i chose to emphasize on when comparing him to floyd, pernell's skillset and floyd's skillset. if you actua;;y read my posts instead of the line you bolded you would have seen this, but you'd rather be a little ****head and insult me, which means nothing when posting logic like i have done since i posted on this topic. i never claimed you little ****boy that you don't look at the level of competiton, i claimed you looked at how they performed more than who thay performed on, pay attention, you're not being assertive enough when you read my posts, you're focusing too much on certain lines that you don't agree with and responding to that. when you put two fighters in the ring against one another, they study how the fighter performed more than who they performed on. prime example, oscar de la hoya;s trainer freedie roach for the de la hoya/mayweather fight looking at how floyd performed more than him performing against corrales. that's what i meant. you study a fighter's style no matter who they fight against, their performance means more when you're fighting them than who they perfomred against, especially if your style is different than the fighter they fought in past, which pernell's style is to floyd and floyd's style is to pernell. the closest thing pernell has to a fighter he has fought with a style like floyd's was roger, and that isn't really close at all.

Whatever, dude. Read my previous post and step your game up.

[pbftxrs316]

LMAO at you. The guy who beat Vernon Forrest twice had beat him SIX YEARS AGO TOO!!!! He was finished too! And he fought Sturm and Hopkins AT MIDDLEWEIGHT YOU DUMMY!

i was reffering to floyd you ****ing dumby, you didn't even spell dumby right, so you really shouldn't call anybody else one should you? floyd fought oscar at 154, maybe if you read the whole post like you haven't been doing son, you would have gotten this, but once against you fail to do so. shame on you. learn how to read structued sentences before you criticize me, because i'll call you out on it everytime, "DUMMY". LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.

ALRIGHT, I DID PUT THAT IN THERE WRONG, MY BADD. I MEANT FLOYD THOUGH, NOT OSCAR. I RUSHED THROUGH IT. BUT, I KNOW OSCAR FOUGHT HOPKINS AT 160 AS WELL AS STURM.

[!! Shawn]

Whitaker took on 2-division world champion Roger Mayweather in his 12th fight... He was down but he also put Roger down and won a decision.

Roger could punch too, he just had problems with taking punches.

Whitaker was never knocked down in what I would call his 'prime', from the late 80's to the early 90's. He was barely even hit actually.

Not only that. I have never seen Pete hurt, or legitimately down. Every knockdown I ever saw was an off balance thing with the exception of Hurtado where Pea was legitimately whacked with a solid punch on the chin.

[Run]

Points Rating Scale:

Mayweather:

Level of Opposition Beaten - 9.0

Speed - 8.5

Power - 6.5

Defense - 9.5

Heart - 6.5

Chin - 8.0

Overall Skill - 10

Score = 42


Whitaker:

Level of Opposition Beaten - 7.5

Speed - 9.0

Power - 6.0

Defense - 10

Heart - 6.5

Chin - 9.0

Overall Skill - 10

Score = 58



Never pay again for live sex! | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! | Chat for free!

[!! Shawn]

i was reffering to floyd you ****ing dumby, you didn't even spell dumby right, so you really shouldn't call anybody else one should you? floyd fought oscar at 154, maybe if you read the whole post like you haven't been doing son, you would have gotten this, but once against you fail to do so. shame on you. learn how to read structued sentences before you criticize me, because i'll call you out on it everytime, "DUMMY". LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.

Dummy is actually the correct spelling... Dumby is not a word.

[IMDAZED]

i was reffering to floyd you ****ing dumby, you didn't even spell dumby right, so you really shouldn't call anybody else one should you? floyd fought oscar at 154, maybe if you read the whole post like you haven't been doing son, you would have gotten this, but once against you fail to do so. shame on you. learn how to read structued sentences before you criticize me, because i'll call you out on it everytime, "DUMMY". LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.

Here's that WHOLE sentence:

and oscar not having a big win in six years when he beat a guy who beat a vernon forrest twice and held the wbc 154 title, at the highest wieght class he's been in ever,

Now you claim you weren't talking about Oscar, you were talking about Floyd.

So umm...what guy did Floyd fight that beat Vernon Forrest twice?

Or was the first half about Oscar...but not the second half?



Go away.