True or False: Pacquiao's Welter Resume>>>Floyd's

[playaballer1]

Cotto was at a CW of 145. Wasn't a WW fight. Marg was 150 CW wasn't a WW fight.

His resume at WW is:

De La Hoya
Clottey


Are you seriously even comparing the 2?

[Joartcc7]

But what if I don't feel pwned at all?

*****-****s. Like you bro. Dont have the capacity to feel pwned. Because it is a concept that is beyond your intellectual capacity.

[badass316]

......OK, here's the thing.

To have them on your resume and to argue he's better than someone, you kinda have to use names that he actually beat. Not people he just fought.

Saying his resume at 147 is better than Mayweathers merely because he fought Margarito, Cotto and Pacqiauo is just plain ridiculous.

I guess Demarcus Corley an ATG also? He has names such as;

Mayweather
Cotto
Witter
Judah
Alexander
Maidana

All on his resume, right?

I'm guessing your definition of resume just consists of Ws which is not my definition of it. A resume to me is basically your whole body of work, which includes losses not just the wins. Chavez Jr. is undefeated, would that make his resume great because their all wins? No.

Chop Chop is a very poor example. All those names you listed Chop Chop fought at 140. We're talking about WW resume's here. And since you've already brought it up, yes, Chop Chop's resume is better than PBF's at 140. PBF fought 3 times at 140 while Chop Chop's whole career was basically at 140. And he didn't fight scrubs as your list already proves.

and clottey lost to all of them-lol

floyd's resume at ww is better--no need for criticism at this point man--

If you actually think PBF has a better resume than Pacquiao at 147 then no amount of logic is going to get through to you. PBF's resume at 147 is thin at best. Without Shane, he basically has no resume at 147. Baldomir is probably the worst lineal champion in boxing history. I respect the man's toughness and grit, but he's garbage. If you have to bring Baldomir's name into a bragging rights contest then chances are you're way behind the competition.

[pasawayako]

Even floyd jr. himself will say that pac's ww resume is far better compared to him. lol

[Joartcc7]

Lols at the ****** *****s here who says Baldomir is a better champ than Cotto.

Baldomir?

That name will make you an ATG. lols!

[IronDanHamza]

I'm guessing your definition of resume just consists of Ws which is not my definition of it. A resume to me is basically your whole body of work, which includes losses not just the wins. Chavez Jr. is undefeated, would that make his resume great because their all wins? No. .

So your saying when comparing fighters resume to see who is better you include their losses? Why would you do this? This has no logical explanation. If your just merely saying who they fought and adding it to their resume it defys the idea of who's better.

By this logic you must think Oscar is greater than Pacqiauo, right?

When obviously, this isn't true.

And Chavez Jr isn't great becaue his resume is weak, regardless to if he is undefeated.

Chop Chop is a very poor example. All those names you listed Chop Chop fought at 140. We're talking about WW resume's here. And since you've already brought it up, yes, Chop Chop's resume is better than PBF's at 140. PBF fought 3 times at 140 while Chop Chop's whole career was basically at 140. And he didn't fight scrubs as your list already proves.

If you read my post you will see I didn't once compare Chop Chop to Mayweather...

Chop Chop is a good example because by your logic, Chop Chop's resume is worthy of the HOF.

Do you think Chop Chop Corley is a HOF'er?

[badass316]

So your saying when comparing fighters resume to see who is better you include their losses? Why would you do this? This has no logical explanation. If your just merely saying who they fought and adding it to their resume it defys the idea of who's better.

By this logic you must think Oscar is greater than Pacqiauo, right?

When obviously, this isn't true.

And Chavez Jr isn't great becaue his resume is weak, regardless to if he is undefeated.

Why would I include losses? Because those losses are part of the fighters body of work. Example: Azumah Nelson fought and lost to Salvador Sanchez. Now does Azumah losing to Sanchez make him any less of a great fighter? No. Him fighting Sanchez should still be considered part of his resume even though he didn't win because the competition was equally great.

And no it doesn't defy the idea of whose better, it just reinforces the idea of who had the greater body of work in their respective careers (who fought the better competition). Shane Mosley has a better resume than Vernon Forrest, does that automatically make SSM better? No.

No, I don't think DLH is greater than Pacquiao. However some people have a legitimate argument when they say DLH has a greater body of work than Pacquiao, even if he did lose most of his big fights.

If you read my post you will see I didn't once compare Chop Chop to Mayweather...

Chop Chop is a good example because by your logic, Chop Chop's resume is worthy of the HOF.

Do you think Chop Chop Corley is a HOF'er?

Now you're just putting words in my mouth. I never once said, or even hinted, that Chop Chop's resume is HOF worthy. All I said was that Chop Chop has a better resume than PBF at 140, which he does. PBFs win over Gatti, Bruseles, and even Chop Chop himself does not equate to Chop Chops whole body of work at 140. Chop Chop can actually claim that he fought Cotto, whereas PBF's only claim is the moniker "He lives too far away."