Is Boots to Crawford what Broner was to Mayweather?

[MulaKO]

leave lady kuntdale alone

Lady kuntdale is mentally fragile and blocks all users with conflicting ideas

At least he doesn’t plagiarize and manages to come up with it himself unlike other dumbass on this site like yourself
Hey man if it will not make me deal with Gaydrien Broner I might just have to use it
Look at your dumbass at being frustrated cause he blocked you , I guess it’s working
Lmfao at the goldfish

[SouthpawRight]

At least he doesn’t plagiarize and manages to come up with it himself unlike other dumbass on this site like yourself
Hey man if it will not make me deal with Gaydrien Broner I might just have to use it
Look at your dumbass at being frustrated cause he blocked you , I guess it’s working
Lmfao at the goldfish

tapping out so soon baby girl

daughters have a maricon for a pop

[IronDanHamza]

His whole career is a Guantlet of good names. You just went over his light weight career. Paulie was still a two weight champion. Who did boots face that was a two weight champion? Tank is even worse.

Paulie, Marcos Maidana, John Molina Jr, Porter, Mikey Garcia, Vargas, Pacquiao, thats a Gauntlet of good names. He just didn't win. Thats not a babied resume. A baby resume is putting people on rehydration clause, never unifying belts and avoiding tough fights. Boots still got time but he has more in common with Tank. They are both protected.

An Guantlet is a Guantlet. He didn't have to win the Gauntlet lol. He was man enough to try to attempt it. Thats the difference from being babied but I forgot you are the canelo fan boy.

Idk y you brought up only broners career prior to his first lost. I am referring to his career. You be putting narratives into people's comments.

Post Pauli I agree, but he had no choice at that point.

But Pauli and pre Pauli, when he was P4P #5 and massively hyped, his career was the literal epitome of babied.

It's different "going through a gauntlet" when you don't hold the cards. When he held all the cards, he fought nobody and did so for a good 3 or so years when he was the the biggest prospect in the sport by a country mile.

Why I brought up his "pre loss" career is because you are comparing his career to Boots career thus far, you can't do that. It's not a fair comparison. You have to compare their career's relatively. And they're two of the same.

Your point, if I'm not mistaken, is Boots is "protected". My point is Broner was the literal epitome of "protected". Until he lost. That's usally the case with fighters like that, once they lose their value goes down, therefore they are forced to take the fights they wouldn't have before.

Either way, Broner was the poster boy for a babied and protected fighter.

[Coverdale]

Post Pauli I agree, but he had no choice at that point.

But Pauli and pre Pauli, when he was P4P #5 and massively hyped, his career was the literal epitome of babied.

It's different "going through a gauntlet" when you don't hold the cards. When he held all the cards, he fought nobody and did so for a good 3 or so years when he was the the biggest prospect in the sport by a country mile.

Why I brought up his "pre loss" career is because you are comparing his career to Boots career thus far, you can't do that. It's not a fair comparison. You have to compare their career's relatively. And they're two of the same.

Your point, if I'm not mistaken, is Boots is "protected". My point is Broner was the literal epitome of "protected". Until he lost. That's usally the case with fighters like that, once they lose their value goes down, therefore they are forced to take the fights they wouldn't have before.

Either way, Broner was the poster boy for a babied and protected fighter.

You're using a depth of analysis and reason the person you are responding to is incapable of understanding.

[MalevolentBite]

You're using a depth of analysis and reason the person you are responding to is incapable of understanding.

Damn. You gotta log off the computer. You seem to have a fixation with me.

[MalevolentBite]

Post Pauli I agree, but he had no choice at that point.

But Pauli and pre Pauli, when he was P4P #5 and massively hyped, his career was the literal epitome of babied.

It's different "going through a gauntlet" when you don't hold the cards. When he held all the cards, he fought nobody and did so for a good 3 or so years when he was the the biggest prospect in the sport by a country mile.

Why I brought up his "pre loss" career is because you are comparing his career to Boots career thus far, you can't do that. It's not a fair comparison. You have to compare their career's relatively. And they're two of the same.

Your point, if I'm not mistaken, is Boots is "protected". My point is Broner was the literal epitome of "protected". Until he lost. That's usally the case with fighters like that, once they lose their value goes down, therefore they are forced to take the fights they wouldn't have before.

Either way, Broner was the poster boy for a babied and protected fighter.

I can only compare what boots has done now. If he retired today. Then compare it to broner who is basically semi retire. If boots some how died today his record would stand as it is.

Once again you are assuming. nobody else in PBC faced a gauntlet of names after they lost. Did Charlo run a Guantlet? Did Spence? Nobody has a better run of names than broner in pbc. Broner faced higher profile of names than Tank, Thurman and porter.

To say he didnt have a choice makes no sense. Broner always thought he was better than he actually was and took short cuts and got exposed but he wasn't babied like Tank. You and cover can play kissing cousins but your argument is a facade.

[IronDanHamza]

I can only compare what boots has done now. If he retired today. Then compare it to broner who is basically semi retire. If boots some how died today his record would stand as it is.

That illogical.

You should compare them at the same stages of their career. By which Broner was HEAVILY "babied and protected", he just was. I'm going to assume you weren't watching boxing during that time? Where Broner was P4P #5 for no reason?

Once again you are assuming. nobody else in PBC faced a gauntlet of names after they lost. Did Charlo run a Guantlet? Did Spence? Nobody has a better run of names than broner in pbc. Broner faced higher profile of names than Tank, Thurman and porter.

I am assuming what? What am I supposed to be assuming?

Broner didn't fight better opponents than Thurman, Porter or Spence. Not even close. Not then, and not now.

To say he didnt have a choice makes no sense. Broner always thought he was better than he actually was and took short cuts and got exposed but he wasn't babied like Tank. You and cover can play kissing cousins but your argument is a facade.

Again I'm going to assume you weren't watching boxing at the time.

You are talking about THE Tank before Tank. Adrien Broner is the poster boy for a protected fighter (pre loss). He was gifted vacant world titles vs unranked fighters. He was placed #5 on the P4P for no reason. He beat ONE fighter ranked in the Top 5, all the way up to his first real risk in Maidana, which at the time was considered a heavy favourite.

I don't see where you're lost. After Broner stepped up and lost multiple fights, his bargaining power drastically decreased. Meaning, he can no longer just fight nobodies and make a fortune. Hence why he then HAD to step up and fight the bigger names and better fighters. What part of that are not getting?

I think it's absolutely wild that on the topic of fighters fighting a "gauntlet" the example of ADRIEN BRONER is being used That's some real backwards shit

[MalevolentBite]

That illogical.

You should compare them at the same stages of their career. By which Broner was HEAVILY "babied and protected", he just was. I'm going to assume you weren't watching boxing during that time? Where Broner was P4P #5 for no reason?



I am assuming what? What am I supposed to be assuming?

Broner didn't fight better opponents than Thurman, Porter or Spence. Not even close. Not then, and not now.



Again I'm going to assume you weren't watching boxing at the time.

You are talking about THE Tank before Tank. Adrien Broner is the poster boy for a protected fighter (pre loss). He was gifted vacant world titles vs unranked fighters. He was placed #5 on the P4P for no reason. He beat ONE fighter ranked in the Top 5, all the way up to his first real risk in Maidana, which at the time was considered a heavy favourite.

I don't see where you're lost. After Broner stepped up and lost multiple fights, his bargaining power drastically decreased. Meaning, he can no longer just fight nobodies and make a fortune. Hence why he then HAD to step up and fight the bigger names and better fighters. What part of that are not getting?

I think it's absolutely wild that on the topic of fighters fighting a "gauntlet" the example of ADRIEN BRONER is being used That's some real backwards shit

Where was my arguement broner was ever top 5 p4p or should be? Boots isn't either. I am going to stop saying assuming. You are not lying. I never once said broner should had been top anything. I am only taking about the names of his resume thats it. Compared to boots and tank. Where i think boots is more like tank than broner.

Porter fought brook, paulie, Thurman, Garcia and Crawford

Spence got famous beating up on fighters Thurman already pieced up.

Thurman record is fine. I think broner had more bigger names on his resume. Regardless if he won them fights or not.

To say porter had better career than broner is fine but broner had more names.

he chose to take those fights. He could had easily not taken those fights broner had fans that would buy any fight he was on. He didnt have to challenge him self. He could had taken the same route as Tank ! Thats my point.

Guanlet- go through an intimidating or dangerous crowd or experience in order to reach a goal.

From his first lost he was matched very hard compared to his star marketable of not being protected like Tank. So he's The boxingscene.com team saying the same thing I am saying to you. Broner was matched harder than mosr American fighters post 2005.

But of course. I don't watch boxing lol. You kinda clown. You already got exposed when canelo lost to Crawford then said canelo would beat James Toney and most people on here called you a clown on the live fight comment chat when Crawford won. My boxing interest goes all the way back to Larry Holmes. I seen majority of all boxing title matches post 1976 to now. I am not saying am old but I had stacks of boxing dvds. I used to watch back to back.

[MalevolentBite]

That illogical.

You should compare them at the same stages of their career. By which Broner was HEAVILY "babied and protected", he just was. I'm going to assume you weren't watching boxing during that time? Where Broner was P4P #5 for no reason?



I am assuming what? What am I supposed to be assuming?

Broner didn't fight better opponents than Thurman, Porter or Spence. Not even close. Not then, and not now.



Again I'm going to assume you weren't watching boxing at the time.

You are talking about THE Tank before Tank. Adrien Broner is the poster boy for a protected fighter (pre loss). He was gifted vacant world titles vs unranked fighters. He was placed #5 on the P4P for no reason. He beat ONE fighter ranked in the Top 5, all the way up to his first real risk in Maidana, which at the time was considered a heavy favourite.

I don't see where you're lost. After Broner stepped up and lost multiple fights, his bargaining power drastically decreased. Meaning, he can no longer just fight nobodies and make a fortune. Hence why he then HAD to step up and fight the bigger names and better fighters. What part of that are not getting?

I think it's absolutely wild that on the topic of fighters fighting a "gauntlet" the example of ADRIEN BRONER is being used That's some real backwards shit

An Guantlet is a Guantlet. I never said he had the best record or the hardest record. Never once said it. In his era he fought mostly everyone of name value for his weight. Broner was never a true 147lber.

The best resume for me is Ali, hagler, Duran, Leonard, oscar and manny Pacquiao. Floyd too. His resume is good.

Foreman too. His 2nd run was good. Never avoided anyone. But Tank and boots ? F that.

[IronDanHamza]

Where was my arguement broner was ever top 5 p4p or should be? Boots isn't either. I am going to stop saying assuming. You are not lying. I never once said broner should had been top anything. I am only taking about the names of his resume thats it. Compared to boots and tank. Where i think boots is more like tank than broner.

Your argument is Boots is being babied and protected and Broner wasn't, which isn't true. Broner was the epitome of both of those things, when he was #5 P4P for no reason.

Porter fought brook, paulie, Thurman, Garcia and Crawford

Spence got famous beating up on fighters Thurman already pieced up.

Thurman record is fine. I think broner had more bigger names on his resume. Regardless if he won them fights or not.

To say porter had better career than broner is fine but broner had more names.

All 3 of those; Spence, Porter, Thurman fought way better fighters than Broner. All 3 of those were the opposite of babied and protected. Unlike Broner who was.

he chose to take those fights. He could had easily not taken those fights broner had fans that would buy any fight he was on. He didnt have to challenge him self. He could had taken the same route as Tank ! Thats my point.

He did take the same route as Tank. Infact, worse than Tank. That's the point.

He only started fighting top level opposition when his value drastically decreased.

Guanlet- go through an intimidating or dangerous crowd or experience in order to reach a goal.

From his first lost he was matched very hard compared to his star marketable of not being protected like Tank. So he's The boxingscene.com team saying the same thing I am saying to you. Broner was matched harder than mosr American fighters post 2005.

Yeah AFTER his first loss. Before that he was heavily protected, thus the point and the reason your argument makes no sense.

]But of course. I don't watch boxing lol. You kinda clown.

I said I don't think you were watching boxing when Broner was undefeated and heavily protected and babied. It doesn't sound like you were. Were you?

You already got exposed when canelo lost to Crawford then said canelo would beat James Toney and most people on here called you a clown on the live fight comment chat when Crawford won..

By "most people" you mean like one person? I'm not sure you know what basic words mean.

How does Canelo losing to Crawford expose me? I didn't pick Canelo to win that fight. And even if I did how does that change the fact that that means absolutely nothing in regards to what would happen if a prime Canelo fought Toney?

You sound incredibly moronic. You might want to try again.