Who had the better career at Welterweight: Pacquiao or Crawford?

[The Big Dunn]

You making up excuses

Manny was the better fighter both those nights

Cotto was 145. ODH was 147, a weight he hadn’t made in 8 years.

Manny was better in part because he wasn’t drained like they were.

[djtmal]

Cotto was 145. ODH was 147, a weight he hadn’t made in 8 years.

Manny was better in part because he wasn’t drained like they were.

Those are excuses Roy Jones dropped down from Heavy to 175 and outgutted Tarver who was a natural lightheavy. Drained and all

[The Big Dunn]

Those are excuses Roy Jones dropped down from Heavy to 175 and outgutted Tarver who was a natural lightheavy. Drained and all

They are facts. Roy doing that doesn’t make Cotto or ODH not drained.

Bye!

[djtmal]

They are facts. Roy doing that doesn’t make Cotto or ODH not drained.

Bye!

Fact or not. Roy doing it, despite being drained, means it can be done.

But we already know in Floyd boy land, any ol excuse will do and mediocrity is the norm

Manny was the better fighter both those nights

[IronDanHamza]

Who was better than Thurman

Errol Spence was ranked #1 at that time.

[Haka]

Who cares what some writer of some boxing magazine thinks in regards to the specific ranking. Resume wise Spence was behind Thurman simply because Brooks had his orbital broken and was not the same fighter.

[The Big Dunn]

Who cares what some writer of some boxing magazine thinks in regards to the specific ranking. Resume wise Spence was behind Thurman simply because Brooks had his orbital broken and was not the same fighter.

Huh? Thurman had been inactive while Spence was active. Thurman didn’t even win his belt in the ring. He got elevated to champ.

No way he was better.

[IronDanHamza]

Who cares what some writer of some boxing magazine thinks in regards to the specific ranking. Resume wise Spence was behind Thurman simply because Brooks had his orbital broken and was not the same fighter.

Oh yeah, who cares who was ranked where. I'm sure you hold that standard when it doesn't suit you as well.

Thurman wasn't the #1 WW in the world. That's an objective fact and the sooner you morons get over that fact, the better.

Thurman at that point was lucky to even be in the Top 10. He hadn't beaten a ranked fighter in over 2 years.

[djtmal]

Errol Spence was ranked #1 at that time.

But Thurman was better at that time

[IronDanHamza]

But Thurman was better at that time

No, he wasn't.

Errol Spence was the #1 ranked WW in the world at the time. That is an OBJECTIVE FACT. I can't make it easier for you to understand. This is not a difficult thing to get.

Thurman hadn't beaten a ranked fighter in 28 months, he was lucky to be ranked at all let alone the generous #3 ranking he was given at the time.

He was not even in the conversation of being the #1 ranked WW at the time.