Canelo is not an all time great fighter

[IronDanHamza]

You struggle with telling the truth

How? Name a lie I've told.

[djtmal]

How? Name a lie I've told.

You can start with Hearns not being prime vs Hagler

You lying mofo

[IronDanHamza]

You can start with Hearns not being prime vs Hagler

He was stopped before that fight. It's you that said anyone who's been stopped isn't in their prime.

Unless you are now changing that position?

[djtmal]

[QUOTE=IronDanHamza;n32565075]

He was stopped before that fight. /QUOTE]

And

Hearns was in his prime you lying mofo

That's why I know you not qualified to say who was in their prime or not

[IronDanHamza]

And

Hearns was in his prime you lying mofo

So you are no longer of the opinion that if someone is stopped that they aren't in their prime?

[djtmal]

So you are no longer of the opinion that if someone is stopped that they aren't in their prime?

Hearns was in his prime

That is common knowledge

You not qualified to determine primes

[IronDanHamza]

Hearns was in his prime

That is common knowledge

So you admit that someone can be in their prime even though they've been stopped.

Now what about Frazier in 74 and Schmeling in 38? You said both were in their prime, do you stand on that?

[djtmal]

So you admit that

Hearns was in his prime vs Hagler

You not qualified to determine primes

[IronDanHamza]

Hearns was in his prime vs Hagler

You not qualified to determine primes

Are you incapable of answering basic questions? You already said you think Hearns was prime, therefore someone can be in thier prime after being stopped. That's been estbalished.

Now answer if Frazier was prime in 74, and Schmeling was prime in 38, you claimed both were, do you stand on that?

[djtmal]

Are you incapable of answering basic questions?

I don't answer to you

Canelo isn't an all time great worth mentioning

Hearns was prime vs Hagler