Is "WHEN" you fight more important than "WHO" you fight????

[joseph5620]

And yet leonard's win over hagler is considered a great win under the same circumstances. Dlh's win over chavez considered a great win under the same circumstances which is why I bring it up.

Leonard's win over Hagler is not the same as Holmes/Ali, Chavez/Delahoya, or Norris/ Leonard. You can't be serious with that.

[chiguy91]

i think the when refers to the fighters condition, like age or win/lose streak. like it's a legit win if he's not shot, on a losing streak, or way out of his ideal weight class. that's the kind of when i look at it most of the times.

[Larry the boss]

This guy is reaching and trying and is a pissed off ******* trying to justify Arum putting him in with good names under bad circumstances lately

[shadeyfizzle]

Buster Douglas was overweight, out of shape,and not motivated for that fight. And Holyfield was considered the top dog after that fight. So your claim that "nobody " gave him credit is false.

Youre missing the point. Point was *****s defend floyd's cherrypicking at welterweight to the point of calling wins over opponents that had no business i n the ring with him in the 1st place great wins because of their ranking at the time.

Obviously holyfield got credit for douglas. But noone in their right mind would call it a great win for him because every dog has his day and douglas just happened to get his. So I made a thread asking exactly how much the when counts because boxing history has been very inconsistent with the when.

[Larry the boss]

Youre missing the point. Point was *****s defend floyd's cherrypicking at welterweight to the point of calling wins over opponents that had no business i n the ring with him in the 1st place great wins because of their ranking at the time.

Obviously holyfield got credit for douglas. But noone in their right mind would call it a great win for him because every dog has his day and douglas just happened to get his. So I made a thread asking exactly how much the when counts because boxing history has been very inconsistent with the when.

If Floyd was cherry picking at ww then Manny cut down the entire cherry tree


Cotto-145-hadn't looked good since before margo

Clottey-just lost to Cotto

Mosley-hadnt won in 2 damn years

Oscar-lmfao please

Floyds ww resume>>>>>>Mannys fabricated ww resume

[shadeyfizzle]

If Floyd was cherry picking at ww then Manny cut down the entire cherry tree


Cotto-145-hadn't looked good since before margo

Clottey-just lost to Cotto

Mosley-hadnt won in 2 damn years

Oscar-lmfao please

Floyds ww resume>>>>>>Mannys fabricated ww resume

Why you keep bringin up pac like its supposed to hurt my feelings???

But since you bring it up...while floyd was fighting the likes of phillips, brusseles and sosa pac was fighting barrera, morales and jmm. But that "when" just didnt seem quite enough to overtake floyd in the p4p rankings.

[Larry the boss]

Why you keep bringin up pac like its supposed to hurt my feelings???

But since you bring it up...while floyd was fighting the likes of phillips, brusseles and sosa pac was fighting barrera, morales and jmm. But that "when" just didnt seem quite enough to overtake floyd in the p4p rankings.

Yep those wins by manny are way better than those wins by floyd.just amazes me who people down floyds ww resume

[big_james10]

*****s love this logic. Baldomir was the #1 ww. Juan manuel marquez was #2 pound for pound.

We know every dog has his day. Howcome nobody mentions buster douglas as a great win for holyfield even though he was the number 1 heavyweight at the time? Howcome *****s love to trash hatton's win over malignaggi when he was the #2 140lber in the world at the time?

I love the way you Pac Clowns use comparisons to try to discredit Floyd. It never works, of course, because the facts tend to get in the way. However, it is a nice try.

The difference between Baldomir and Cotto is that Baldomir was on his way up when Floyd fought him while Cotto was on his way down when Pac fought him. Mosley was considered the #1 welterweight in the world when Mayweather fought him. He was considered damaged goods when Pac fought him. Mayweather fought and beat De La Hoya on Oscar's terms, while Pac fought and beat De La Hoya on Pac's terms. Marquez was the number 2 P4P fighter in all of boxing, while Malignaggi was #2 at 140 (and that ranking was disputable). I have never trashed Hatton's win over Malignaggi, but there is no way in hell a logical person can compare him to Marquez.

I love these comparisons!

[B.U.R.N.E.R]

Tell that to the SRR nut huggers. Shyts overboard.

[Jack Napier]

Yea when you fight them is what matters


Is Holmes win over Ali a great win??

Is Tysons Holmes win a great win?

Is Terry Norris's win over Ray Leonard a great win??


hell no

1. no, Ali was too old
2. yes, Holmes showed yrs later vs Holyfield and Mercer he was still live
3. yes, anybody beating up Leonard is great

*****s love this logic. Baldomir was the #1 ww. Juan manuel marquez was #2 pound for pound.

We know every dog has his day. Howcome nobody mentions buster douglas as a great win for holyfield even though he was the number 1 heavyweight at the time? Howcome *****s love to trash hatton's win over malignaggi when he was the #2 140lber in the world at the time?

nobody gives a fuck about Floyd beating Baldomir or JMM