Adrien Broner will be the next fighter of the decade

[IronDanHamza]

use better grammar next time.

fool

Use better grammar? I made two lists, one for loss's and the other for wins. Where does grammer come into play there? You imbecile.

Your grammar in your post needs work too

It doesn't take a genius to understand that the arguable loss's list is a list of all the fights you could say he's possibly lost. I'm sorry your pea brain couldn't seem to grasp it.

[sugarsmosley]

dammmn irondan is catching some heat in this thread all over the place LOL

[IronDanHamza]

dammmn irondan is catching some heat in this thread all over the place LOL

I know!

Over something that requires the most basic level of understanding.

[LacedUp]

5 years into the decade.

Arguable loss's;

Quintero
De Leon
Malignaggi
Maidana
Porter

Best wins;

DeMarco
Malignaggi
Eloy Perez?
Escobedo?
Rees?

He didn't exactly look like a superstar against Molina either. That was a very bad performance and closer than it should have been.

[IronDanHamza]

He didn't exactly look like a superstar against Molina either. That was a very bad performance and closer than it should have been.

Molina or Emmanuel Taylor?

I thought he beat Molina clearly but didn't look good.

Whereas Taylor was very close IMO. If he didn't get that late knockdown he wouldn't have won.

[LacedUp]

Molina or Emmanuel Taylor?

I thought he beat Molina clearly but didn't look good.

Whereas Taylor was very close IMO. If he didn't get that late knockdown he wouldn't have won.

Molina is the one I remember where I thought he should have looked a lot better against a very limited guy. It was close until round 6-7 if I remember correctly. Couldn't make a case for molina winning, but he should be dominating every round against that kind of guy. But he didn't.

I'm talking about Carlos Molina btw. Not john - which he clearly won. I'm talking about the guy Khan fought after Garcia.

Taylor was close too - but he's also a good fighter.

[Dolezal]

Use better grammar? I made two lists, one for loss's and the other for wins. Where does grammer come into play there? You imbecile.

Your grammar in your post needs work too

It doesn't take a genius to understand that the arguable loss's list is a list of all the fights you could say he's possibly lost. I'm sorry your pea brain couldn't seem to grasp it.

Grammar includes word choice. "Arguable" was a poor word choice and everyone let you know. Your subsequent post explained what you meant, but it was pretty unclear in the initial post, and I doubt those who replied read your next post.

[Dean_Razorback]

Larry, what do you think about news that Broner was out partying the week of the fight, even up to the night before the fight (confirmed by Floyd)?

Reckon he will ever grow up?

when/where did floyd confirm this? i will like to know

[IronDanHamza]

Grammar includes word choice. "Arguable" was a poor word choice and everyone let you know. Your subsequent post explained what you meant, but it was pretty unclear in the initial post, and I doubt those who replied read your next post.

It's simple to understand.

They are the fights he arguably could have lost, his record could arguably have 5 loss's on it.

I don't see how that's difficult. It's not my problem if people struggle with that.

[boxingsupreme87]

It's simple to understand.

They are the fights he arguably could have lost, his record could arguably have 5 loss's on it.

I don't see how that's difficult. It's not my problem if people struggle with that.

Notice how you're literally the only person still trying to defend your stupidly worded post?

Just admit that you ****ed up and move on. You're literally running around like a chicken with its head chopped off trying to defend yourself. You're pathetic.