Pacquiao vs Jones @ 168

[Kevin Jesus]

How would he be a flyweight if he's fighting Roy at 168?


You're making a ****** point, he'd be a former flyweight however it is put, there's no need to ****ing state it unless some people really are utter ******s.

You're telling me that it's appropriate to say that Floyd Mayweather Jr is the first Super Featherweight to beat a former Middleweight, without putting the former in front of Super Featherweight?

[-----------]

You're telling me that it's appropriate to say that Floyd Mayweather Jr is the first Super Featherweight to beat a former Middleweight, without putting the former in front of Super Featherweight?

If he is then YES, of course.

They would have to fight at the same weight anyway, so unless you're ******ed most common IQ folk can work out that it makes sense and have the brain cells to make the assumption.

[Chr0nic]

[IMG]http://i392.***********.com/albums/pp3/tae_tae_tae_photo/tae.jpg[/IMG]

i think it's plausible

[Oasis_Lad]

Pac by KO in the 1st.

[Main Event]

No........

[Kevin Jesus]

If he is then YES, of course.

They would have to fight at the same weight anyway, so unless you're ******ed most common IQ folk can work out that it makes sense and have the brain cells to make the assumption.

You're not making sense now. What if you're talking to a casual fan? is a casual fan ****** or has a low IQ. If you say something that absurd, "Pacquiao is the first Flyweight to beat a former Heavyweight" what do you think the casual fan would think? sounds like you're trying to big up Pacquiao more than he already is. You're not talking with sense when you say a Flyweight fighting a Former Heavyweight. With your logic, why not say, "Pacquiao would be the first Flyweight to beat a Heavyweight" without using former for any of them. People would be smart enough to know what you're talking about, or they'll misunderstand you and think you're ****** and that you think Pacquiao is currently a Flyweight and Jones is currently a Heavyweight. What's the problem with talking with sense?

[-----------]

You're not making sense now. What if you're talking to a casual fan? is a casual fan ****** or has a low IQ. If you say something that absurd, "Pacquiao is the first Flyweight to beat a former Heavyweight" what do you think the casual fan would think? sounds like you're trying to big up Pacquiao more than he already is. You're not talking with sense when you say a Flyweight fighting a Former Heavyweight. With your logic, why not say, "Pacquiao would be the first Flyweight to beat a Heavyweight" without using former for any of them. People would be smart enough to know what you're talking about, or they'll misunderstand you and think you're ****** and that you think Pacquiao is currently a Flyweight and Jones is currently a Heavyweight. What's the problem with talking with sense?

I don't think squealpiggy intended this thread to be viewed by the casual fan, as it was posted on a boxing forum, in the Non-Stop Boxing sub-forum. But you can ask him yourself if you want, I could be wrong?

I didn't bother reading the other **** you wrote, I don't think it was needed, This thread was not created for the casual fan imo.

[Kevin Jesus]

I don't think squealpiggy intended this thread to be viewed by the casual fan, as it was posted on a boxing forum, in the Non-Stop Boxing sub-forum. But you can ask him yourself if you want, I could be wrong?

I didn't bother reading the other **** you wrote, I don't think it was needed, This thread was not created for the casual fan imo.

When I first started reading on NSB as a visitor, I didn't know much about boxing weight classes yet(back in 2004), If I read something like that, with my little knowledge of boxing and weight classes, do you think I'd understand? at what? 16 years old. If you didn't know, there's a lot of visitors on NSB who don't have the common knowledge that you and I have about weight classes and smart assumptions. I'm not knocking the TS, I'm just saying it makes more sense to say Former Flyweight. Let's just agree to disagree.

[robjr]

a 40 yr old drained roy at 160 would still win... 168 forget about it...

[-----------]

When I first started reading on NSB as a visitor, I didn't know much about boxing yet(back in 2004), If I read something like that, with my little knowledge of boxing and weight classes, do you think I'd understand? at what? 16 years old. If you didn't know, there's a lot of visitors on NSB who don't have the common knowledge that you and I have about weight classes and smart assumptions. I'm not knocking the TS, I'm just saying it makes more sense to say Former Flyweight. Let's just agree to disagree.

I disagree, its not really needed at all.

There's just too many people on this forum that like to nitpick all the time.