Originally posted by Dominicano Soy
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
1 thing i have noticed bout Cotto fans and appreciate
Collapse
-
Originally posted by IronDanHamza View PostIf anything he was probably stronger, at 147.
Comment
-
Originally posted by IronDanHamza View PostLord 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???????????
Comment
-
Originally posted by Dominicano Soy View PostIron, 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.
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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by IronDanHamza View PostLord 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???????????
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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Walt Liquor View PostThere'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.
Comment
-
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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Walt Liquor View PostThere'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.
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?
Comment
-
Originally posted by IMDAZED View PostWhat 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?
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.
Comment
Comment