Well not really, Herring was the underdog in that fight and he beat him which made him #1 in the division. That means something.
Valdez was undefeated. Tail end of his career how?
It's just an asinine concept. He's beaten the #1 guy in the division twice and you're saying he's beaten no one? How can those two things possibly be correct at the same time?
Shakur's unproven at 135, that's a given, he's just moved there. But to say he's unproven in general is just objectively wrong.
					Valdez was undefeated. Tail end of his career how?
It's just an asinine concept. He's beaten the #1 guy in the division twice and you're saying he's beaten no one? How can those two things possibly be correct at the same time?
Shakur's unproven at 135, that's a given, he's just moved there. But to say he's unproven in general is just objectively wrong.
 So how could you possibly then say on the same token he's beaten no one with a pulse? The two things can't work at the same time.
 So how could you possibly then say on the same token he's beaten no one with a pulse? The two things can't work at the same time.
Comment