yes roger was joking but as for why he didnt mention pacquiao the simple answer is that pacquiao didn't apply to anything he was saying.
if you read the article, he's mentioning guys going up to 154. i know pacquiao fans salivate whenever the fact that he won 8 division titles is brought up but he never actually moved up or fought at 154. he fought for a vacant 154 title at a catchweight of 150. so the reason roger didnt bring up pacquiao's name is cuz pacquiao never did what roger was talking about.
that being said, what are your guys takes on pacquiao's "8th" division title. I'm asking because i dont see how it should count towards his tally. he didnt fight at that weight limit, he didnt beat the champion to win it, nor did he defend it. no doubt he won 7 titles but it's hard for me to give him that 8th one. i'll give you the fact that he was a belt holder but im not going to call him a champion in that division. and even as a belt holder, it's more like a 150 belt, not 154.
if you read the article, he's mentioning guys going up to 154. i know pacquiao fans salivate whenever the fact that he won 8 division titles is brought up but he never actually moved up or fought at 154. he fought for a vacant 154 title at a catchweight of 150. so the reason roger didnt bring up pacquiao's name is cuz pacquiao never did what roger was talking about.
that being said, what are your guys takes on pacquiao's "8th" division title. I'm asking because i dont see how it should count towards his tally. he didnt fight at that weight limit, he didnt beat the champion to win it, nor did he defend it. no doubt he won 7 titles but it's hard for me to give him that 8th one. i'll give you the fact that he was a belt holder but im not going to call him a champion in that division. and even as a belt holder, it's more like a 150 belt, not 154.
Comment