Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Canelo’s Resume vs Pacquiao’s Resume

Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by IronDanHamza View Post

    I don't think you understand what the word "dominate" means.

    Firstly 2012-2015 is irrelevant as previously explained as that was still his era. I just pointed out he was never the Top WW (the highest ranked WW) during that time , 2012-2015, unlike 2009-2012 where he was the Top WW. (The highest ranked WW)

    The new era after that, 2016-2023, as you've pointed out with your lists there, Pacquaio was never close to dominating that time frame, he had a short 2 year spell at #3. So all your doing there is proving my point - That he didn't dominate the new WW era after his.
    He is hanging onto the word dominate because its like a soothing hot chocolate under his Manny security blanket.
    SouthpaRight SouthpawRight likes this.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Roadblock View Post

      He is hanging onto the word dominate because its like a soothing hot chocolate under his Manny security blanket.
      This site get's weirder by the day.

      In this thread alone we have people actually trying to argue that Pacquaio's resume at 40 years old and above is better than Hopkins resume at 40 years old and above.

      Then when I say Pacquaio was never the Top WW from 2012 onward, which is a literal objective fact, you've got someone arguing he was until their blue in the face and attempts to support it by sending a picture where it literally shows that he wasn't the highest ranked WW at any point from 2012 onward

      Very bizarre.
      SouthpaRight SouthpawRight likes this.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by IronDanHamza View Post

        This site get's weirder by the day.

        In this thread alone we have people actually trying to argue that Pacquaio's resume at 40 years old and above is better than Hopkins resume at 40 years old and above.

        Then when I say Pacquaio was never the Top WW from 2012 onward, which is a literal objective fact, you've got someone arguing he was until their blue in the face and attempts to support it by sending a picture where it literally shows that he wasn't the highest ranked WW at any point from 2012 onward

        Very bizarre.
        So true, fan is short for fanatic, in that it is impossible for a fanatic to be objective, on the contrary, they are super biased to the point of changing facts to protect their point of view, when cornered they act like a cat in a rabbit trap going off in random directions to muddy the pond to where the conversation just ends in a rubbish tip, the big takeaway with fans is its not about fact or truth its about them protecting their beliefs no matter how misguided they are.

        Comment

        Working...
        X
        TOP