Tweet
No ******, you are part of the 5% that doesn't know that the world is round and the 5% that says Mosley beat Cotto even after seeing the fight and even hearing Mosley himself saying that he thought he did enough to be a draw, Yes draw meaning not a victory. But I guess you know more than Mosley also!!!
if it's your analogy, who would want to get it and be pathetic like you!!!!!
I'm sorry let me correct my statement, ME and everybody else, or haven't you noticed that even Pacman's stans are doing it also!!!
And every time it shows how pathetic you are 1st because you changed the verbage for your original scenario trying to desguize yourself in Cotto's favor on scenario 2 your post number 6582594 (see below) was actually given the victory to Pacman. I gave you the number of your post so you can look it up and not claim that I changed it.
And still with Pacman winning 2 out of 3 scenarios in your opinion, it would be a shame for boxing and Cotto should retire if he loses. But NOOOO you do not discredit nor dash Cotto GTFOH!!!
Wrong, definition of impasse:a situation in which no progress can be made or no advancement is possible; "reached an impasse on the negotiations"
We are at impassse, because your ego doesn't allow you to accept that you have been schooled buy admitting that plenty of small good men have beaten good bigger men, like I did by accepting that plenty of good bigger men have beaten plenty of smaller men, just because you want to continue to bash and discredit Cotto for any type of credit deserved if he wins the fight!!!!
Long time ago, in the past just like it belong in the past although closer that Manny was at 138. Once again grow up and live in the present like the fighters did like!!!!
but since you like to live in the past ANSWER MY ****ING QUESTION, DID YOU FIND AT LEAST 1 ONLY 1, BETTER QUALITY BOXER IN PACMAN'S 1ST 6 YEARS AS A PRO UNTIL BECOMING A 122 LBER, BETTER THAN THE AMATEUR BOXERS I MENTIONED THAT FACED COTTO???
Smaller refers to size and size is base on measurements. For this fight the size differential between Cotto and Pacman will be more narrow than the size differential than Cotto-Clottey, but in your definition Clottey is not bigger than Cotto but Cotto is TOOOOOOO big for Pacman. One of your biggest biased statement ever written. The fact is that even if they are in the same division Clottey is and always will have more size advantage over Cotto than Cotto over Pacman. Next thing I would hear from you is that since Paul Williams is also a WW he is not bigger than Cotto neither is Margarito.
SO PATHETIC!!!!!!
Once again you are the one that always brings that figure and by the way why use it as hyperbole for Pacman and you don't use it as hyperbole for Cotto?? Because you have been schooled that Cotto was around the same weight actually lower (105) close to the same years, in their past. Isn't that double standard or biased? Well it might be that you want to bash Cotto also.
We can finally agree on something, To bad I can't say the same thing about you.
Yeah but in some cases you don't have to follow anyones post because there are posters here that copy/paste almost everyday the same BS and ****** analogy that it is difficult not to notice. AS YOU MAY WELL UNDERSTAND
On the contrary I do follow a group of posters here that have lots of sense and knowkedge and even if there is difference of opinions their knowledge can be educational and people can learn from them, because I do realize that I dont know it all like others. its obvious that you are not in that group of posters I can learn from
By the way Good Morning!!!!
if it's your analogy, who would want to get it and be pathetic like you!!!!!
I'm sorry let me correct my statement, ME and everybody else, or haven't you noticed that even Pacman's stans are doing it also!!!
And every time it shows how pathetic you are 1st because you changed the verbage for your original scenario trying to desguize yourself in Cotto's favor on scenario 2 your post number 6582594 (see below) was actually given the victory to Pacman. I gave you the number of your post so you can look it up and not claim that I changed it.
And still with Pacman winning 2 out of 3 scenarios in your opinion, it would be a shame for boxing and Cotto should retire if he loses. But NOOOO you do not discredit nor dash Cotto GTFOH!!!
Wrong, definition of impasse:a situation in which no progress can be made or no advancement is possible; "reached an impasse on the negotiations"
We are at impassse, because your ego doesn't allow you to accept that you have been schooled buy admitting that plenty of small good men have beaten good bigger men, like I did by accepting that plenty of good bigger men have beaten plenty of smaller men, just because you want to continue to bash and discredit Cotto for any type of credit deserved if he wins the fight!!!!
Long time ago, in the past just like it belong in the past although closer that Manny was at 138. Once again grow up and live in the present like the fighters did like!!!!
but since you like to live in the past ANSWER MY ****ING QUESTION, DID YOU FIND AT LEAST 1 ONLY 1, BETTER QUALITY BOXER IN PACMAN'S 1ST 6 YEARS AS A PRO UNTIL BECOMING A 122 LBER, BETTER THAN THE AMATEUR BOXERS I MENTIONED THAT FACED COTTO???
Smaller refers to size and size is base on measurements. For this fight the size differential between Cotto and Pacman will be more narrow than the size differential than Cotto-Clottey, but in your definition Clottey is not bigger than Cotto but Cotto is TOOOOOOO big for Pacman. One of your biggest biased statement ever written. The fact is that even if they are in the same division Clottey is and always will have more size advantage over Cotto than Cotto over Pacman. Next thing I would hear from you is that since Paul Williams is also a WW he is not bigger than Cotto neither is Margarito.
SO PATHETIC!!!!!!
Once again you are the one that always brings that figure and by the way why use it as hyperbole for Pacman and you don't use it as hyperbole for Cotto?? Because you have been schooled that Cotto was around the same weight actually lower (105) close to the same years, in their past. Isn't that double standard or biased? Well it might be that you want to bash Cotto also.
We can finally agree on something, To bad I can't say the same thing about you.
Yeah but in some cases you don't have to follow anyones post because there are posters here that copy/paste almost everyday the same BS and ****** analogy that it is difficult not to notice. AS YOU MAY WELL UNDERSTAND
On the contrary I do follow a group of posters here that have lots of sense and knowkedge and even if there is difference of opinions their knowledge can be educational and people can learn from them, because I do realize that I dont know it all like others. its obvious that you are not in that group of posters I can learn from
By the way Good Morning!!!!
Comment