Bud beating Spence is equivalent to Floyd beating a 2009-2010 version of pacquaio?
Collapse
-
Comment
-
Once again. Idiotic statement. Memes and gifs don’t make it correct. Ugas stepped in and did his thing. A duck is not signing the fight. If it was a true duck without a valid reason he could be sued by PAC, the promoters, etc.Comment
-
I wouldn't say shop worn, but more like experienced.
The same Cotto who took a knee to Marg, has the skill set and is durable enough to take any 147 version of Spence, just my opinion of course.
To answer TS question. That's actually a hard question to answer, imo. Crawford beating Spence is for his 2nd Undisputed title. Two undefeated fighters. Kind of late but still significant.
Vs
Floyd who needs no introduction, LOL. If he took out Manny who was considered the other generational talent at his peak imo 09-10. That win would have been the cement of Floyds legacy. All of his faults forgi en.
So my my answer is no, Buds win over Spence would not be over a floyd win over 09/10ish Manny.Comment
-
Pacquiao had a lot more wear and tear, 17 more fights than Floyd, and fought 8 of the 12 rounds with an injured shoulder. Floyd still couldn’t hurt him. Spence had less than 30 fights and no losses, no excuse except that he got outboxed by a superior fighter.Comment
-
-
You're retarded. I have a master degree, pretty sure my reading comprehension is light years beyond yours. You could like 5 lifetimes and still be behind me academic wise.
who said he would? You don’t seem to have the reading comprehension to get what I’m trying to say, I’m comparing it to the magnitude and how impressive this victory was for Crawford. Floyd never had this type of win, but would have had if he defeated 2009-2010 Pacquiao.
Spence is 32 and out of his prime. Floyd AND Manny were out of their primes and if he fought Manny in 2009. Floyd would have probably knocked Manny out in 2009. Floyd was a pale shodow of who he was by the time he fought Manny. If you don't see it, YDKSAB. Look in the mirrior and say this =---> IDKSAB because it's true.Comment
-
Comment