Tweet
“Hell, yeah, he’s a LEGEND, Manny Pacquiao, so he always has that motivation,” Danny Garcia said when asked if the 42-year-old Pacquiao inspires him.
-
-
George "Ferocious" Kambosos Jr.: "42 Years Of Age And Still Fighting The Best. This Man Is A LEGEND, One Of The All Time Greats. This Ain’t No Walk In The Park But If Anyone Can, Pac-Man Can.. Let’s Go" -
Tyson Fury, Canelo Alvarez, GGG, Manny Pacquiao, Vasyl Lomachenko, Nonito Donaire, Juan Carlos Estrada, Roman Gonzales, Donnie Nietes.Comment
-
Donaire is a pretty obvious choice.Comment
-
Fury is no legend yet. If he beats AJ he most likely will be.Originally posted by ShaneMosleySr View Post
Comment
-
He is one of six men to win the lineal heavyweight championship twice.
Originally posted by Amir Imam View PostComment
-
Bro he lost the lineal status and was stripped of his titles when he tested positiveOriginally posted by ShaneMosleySr View Post
Comment
-
Maybe you mean Juan Francisco Estrada... These names are still debatable except maybe for Donaire...Originally posted by ShaneMosleySr View PostComment
-
Homie, Shane's feeding a line of bull****.Originally posted by Amir Imam View Post
At best Fury might end up one of six who is recognized. Loads of dudes won the lineal title until historians decided their claim wasn't the strongest of the era. The list of men who actually won a HW title in a HW title fight before sanctioning bodies is pretty long and kind of why we have sanctioning bodies now. Disputes happened all the damn time.
Any list of lineal is picked and chosen, it's not as cut and dry as this man beat this man so he's the champion. If there was a dispute the historian who created the list picks one, mentions him, and makes no mention of the other champion. Soon as you get to the pre-body era and anything before it is just historian consensus, and, historians in boxing are notoriously ****ty historians with biases that neglect a full truth. Hence their bias ass lineal lists. Mostly based off Nat Fleischer who was a plagiarist and liar.
I'll give you one, Peter Maher is as much a lineal champion as Marvin Hart. Won his title the exact same way. In both cases the champion retired, elected his student for the vacancy, and elected a highly thought of opponent for his student to beat. In both cases the student lost and the champion handed over their belt to the man who won. Maher is on no one's lineal lists. Which stops Fitzs from being recognized as a x2 HW champion and x2 lineal HW champion. Also fails to capture how Jeffries ended the dispute by whooping both versions of champions.
So, it's really the story historians want to tell. Maybe in 40 years they'll decide he had one reign. Maybe they will decide he had no reign. Maybe they agree with Shane and call it a x2 reign. We don't know. We know when Maher fought O'Donnel it was for the lineal title. He won it, then when he fought Fitzs it was for the HW title, then when Fitzs won he lost his HW claim to Sharkey then won a different one off Corbett. Sharkey loses his HW claim to Jeffries who also whooped Fitzs. Ain't no reason to not include Maher, Fitzs, Sharkey lineage, except, they do need to perpetuate the lie that is lineal was also universal or undisputed. Nah, very much a disputed title and often.
There's also Spring who was just elected. No fight, nothing, just elected. So, strength of claim...that's more historical consensus from bias fans who call themselves historians. Read one ancient history book and one boxing history book....there's a massive difference between conjecture and edited information. Which is why serious fans stick to the original new paper reports and primary sources. Ain't no read to get a ****ty writer with no historical credential's spin really.Comment
-
Chocolatito
Donaire
Nietes
Canelo
On the women's side, Cecilia Braekhus. Despite getting robbed in her last two fights.Comment
Comment