1 thing i have noticed bout Cotto fans and appreciate

[Bushbaby]

Shit in the sense that he couldn't deal with both Mayweather and Collazo's style, not in the sense that he was slower or less powerful, I saw nothing in him that decreased. Take Adamaek for example, he was knocking guys out at CW, at HW he slowed down a ton, his power wasn't as effective, almost everything deteriorated. You can make a case for Adamek not being the same fighter at HW, definitely not Hatton.

I strongly disagree. You can make a case saying Hatton was the same fighter at 147. But his two fights there say otherwise. You make a fine case, but the fact still undeniably remains that Hatton looked like $h!t at 147 period.

[Doctor_Tenma]

If anything he was probably stronger, at 147.

Iron, you would think Hatton got tossed around at WW. It wasn't a case of him not being strong enough, simply a case of him not being able to capitalize against either Floyd or Collazo when he had them where he wanted.

[IMDAZED]

Lord knows.

Almost all his posts have no relevance.

He say's "Mayweather fought a 38 year old, 16 month lay off Mosley instead of a fresher one in 2006"

Then follows it by saying that he isn't claiming Mayweather avoided him in 06. So, what the **** is being implied here?

Then when told Shane's tooth was hurting, he replies with;

"Don't care, Shane fought better fighters in his prime"

What???????????

It's called irrational hate.

[IronDanHamza]

Iron, you would think Hatton got tossed around at WW. It wasn't a case of him not being strong enough, simply a case of him not being able to capitalize against either Floyd or Collazo when he had them where he wanted.

And those 2 along with Tszyu are the best fighters he'd ever faced up the the Mayweather fight.

If Hatton had fought Judah at 147 he wouldn't have looked so bad.

The reason he looked ineffective at the weight was down to his opposition, not the weight.

[heat27]

That is because Puerto Ricans are good-hearted people.

^^^^^^^^^^^^

[Walt Liquor]

Lord knows.

Almost all his posts have no relevance.

He say's "Mayweather fought a 38 year old, 16 month lay off Mosley instead of a fresher one in 2006"
Then follows it by saying that he isn't claiming Mayweather avoided him in 06. So, what the **** is being implied here?
Then when told Shane's tooth was hurting, he replies with;

"Don't care, Shane fought better fighters in his prime"

What???????????

There's nothing implied. A win over shane in 2006 would be more highly regarded than his win in '10, just like a win over pac in '09, would be more highly regarded than a win over pac in '13. Thats my only point.

Was shane not 38 and coming off a 16 month layoff?

Dunn changed the topic when he brought up the toothache to which i said i didnt care about.

If saying a win over shane in 06 would have been better than floyds in '10 is a problem, then talk to me there. If not stfu and stop trying to make the convo about something its not about.

[IMDAZED]

There's nothing implied. A win over shane in 2006 would be more highly regarded than his win in '10, just like a win over pac in '09, would be more highly regarded than a win over pac in '13. Thats my only point.

Was shane not 38 and coming off a 16 month layoff?

Dunn changed the topic when he brought up the toothache to which i said i didnt care about.

If saying a win over shane in 06 would have been better than floyds in '10 is a problem, then talk to me there. If not stfu and stop trying to make the convo about something its not about.

What does that have to do with Floyd? Shouldn't you be making a thread talking about why Shane avoided Floyd in 2006, instead of posting on how Floyd should've fought Shane then? Doesn't that make more sense?

[Walt Liquor]

Dan, u think im all over the place cuz i am.


Im having 5 different convos. And you're wrong about the zoo thread. You took what i said completely out of context like your are repeatedly doing in this thread.

[IronDanHamza]

There's nothing implied. A win over shane in 2006 would be more highly regarded than his win in '10, just like a win over pac in '09, would be more highly regarded than a win over pac in '13. Thats my only point.

Was shane not 38 and coming off a 16 month layoff?

Dunn changed the topic when he brought up the toothache to which i said i didnt care about.

If saying a win over shane in 06 would have been better than floyds in '10 is a problem, then talk to me there. If not stfu and stop trying to make the convo about something its not about.

Of course a win over 06 Shane is better than a win over an 10 Shane.

A win over Armstrong in 1938 would be better than his iwn over Baldomir in 2006.

I'm asking what the relevance of that is?

Unless you're suggesting Mayweather avoided Mosley in 2006. Then what exactly is your point?

[IronDanHamza]

What does that have to do with Floyd? Shouldn't you be making a thread talking about why Shane avoided Floyd in 2006, instead of posting on how Floyd should've fought Shane then? Doesn't that make more sense?

This is what I'm asking.

I'm asking the same thing about Hatton at 140. (Still laughing at that one)

He's saying Mayweather should have fought these fight to enhance his legacy then following it up by saying he's not saying he avoided them.

It doesn't make any sense. It's all over the place.