I am not saying that but that is the logic people used when they want to discredit floyd for beating Hatton...
They say Ricky Hatton Wasnt Impressive at Welterweight, so floyds over hatton isnt that good because he fought Hatton at welterweight.
But Ricky Hatton was a WBA welter Weight Champion am I wrong???
I didnt know you had to look impressive in winning a championship belt in order to be taken seriously as a champion...
I thought if you beat the champion for his belt then you are a champion???
By that Standard how many champions can we say are not real champions because they didnt look impressive when they won their belts???
They say Ricky Hatton is a Junior Welterweight because he fought most of his career there...
But Floyd has had 39 Fights in which 31 fights were at 135 and under.
Only 8 Fights were at 140 and up.
Ricky Hatton had more fights at 140 AND UP then Floyd did...
Both Floyd and Ricky Hatton were Welter Weight Champions.
Floyd started at 130
Ricky Started at 140
According to them Floyd and Ricky Hatton never fought any good welterweight champions.
So that leads to the Conclusion that Floyd's Run at Welterweight just like Ricky Hatton's wasnt impressive....Because they never fought anybody....
So If Floyd wasnt a impressive welterweight champion because he never fought any good welterweights....
What does a Floyd win at welterweight mean if he wasnt impressive at welterweight???
Then a win over Williams should be more impressive than a win over Floyd.
Then a win over Cotto should be more impressive than a win over Floyd.
Then a win over Margarito should be more impressive than a win over Floyd.
Then a win over Mosely should be more impressive than a win over Floyd.
Then a win over Clottey should be more impressive than a win over Floyd.
Then a win over Berto should be more impressive than a win over Floyd.
Because they are all career welterweights and resumes more impressive then
Floyds at Welterweight.
Why would someone fight floyd at welterweight if he was a mediocre Welterweight according to some of you guys...??
Why not fight Floyd at 135? <<< he was the man in this division
Why not fight Floyd at 130? <<< he was the man in this division
Why not fight Floyd at 140? <<< he was ducked in this division
Why fight Floyd at welterweight if he was no good there???
Why not fight Clottey?
You see their logic?
They say Ricky Hatton Wasnt Impressive at Welterweight, so floyds over hatton isnt that good because he fought Hatton at welterweight.
But Ricky Hatton was a WBA welter Weight Champion am I wrong???
I didnt know you had to look impressive in winning a championship belt in order to be taken seriously as a champion...
I thought if you beat the champion for his belt then you are a champion???
By that Standard how many champions can we say are not real champions because they didnt look impressive when they won their belts???
They say Ricky Hatton is a Junior Welterweight because he fought most of his career there...
But Floyd has had 39 Fights in which 31 fights were at 135 and under.
Only 8 Fights were at 140 and up.
Ricky Hatton had more fights at 140 AND UP then Floyd did...
Both Floyd and Ricky Hatton were Welter Weight Champions.
Floyd started at 130
Ricky Started at 140
According to them Floyd and Ricky Hatton never fought any good welterweight champions.
So that leads to the Conclusion that Floyd's Run at Welterweight just like Ricky Hatton's wasnt impressive....Because they never fought anybody....
So If Floyd wasnt a impressive welterweight champion because he never fought any good welterweights....
What does a Floyd win at welterweight mean if he wasnt impressive at welterweight???
Then a win over Williams should be more impressive than a win over Floyd.
Then a win over Cotto should be more impressive than a win over Floyd.
Then a win over Margarito should be more impressive than a win over Floyd.
Then a win over Mosely should be more impressive than a win over Floyd.
Then a win over Clottey should be more impressive than a win over Floyd.
Then a win over Berto should be more impressive than a win over Floyd.
Because they are all career welterweights and resumes more impressive then
Floyds at Welterweight.
Why would someone fight floyd at welterweight if he was a mediocre Welterweight according to some of you guys...??
Why not fight Floyd at 135? <<< he was the man in this division
Why not fight Floyd at 130? <<< he was the man in this division
Why not fight Floyd at 140? <<< he was ducked in this division
Why fight Floyd at welterweight if he was no good there???
Why not fight Clottey?
You see their logic?
Comment