Miguel Cotto's opponents

[$coinblatt$]

Lol this so ****** you lose a couple of fights and your a bum. Cotto has great resume Mosley,clottey,judah,margarito,malignaggi

Cotto doesn't have a GREAT resume ******. All those wins are average, with a past prime Mosley being his best.

[jtcs1981]

Looked at Cotto's career and his W. The names are not of the greatest boxers but he beat 5 top 10 JWW and 5 top 10 WW when he fought them.

He didnt beat great fighters, but he was competitive against them. He didnt compete in an era of great or many good boxers, but he manage to beat most that share the same era.

If he had beat Tony the first time how that was going to change the perception about him? He beat a no defense brawler would be the argument. Beating Hatton at 140 was going to make a significant difference? You guys will find the same argument you use for Floyd and Pac. There is no way to make everyone happy around here.

I know some of the stans overate Cotto way too much. But some haters discredit him enough, that their favorite fighter best win becomes insignificant.

[Danny Gunz]

Lol all the Marg fans blasting Cotto when Cotto is Marg's best win.

Actually you could easily make an argument that Cotto's resume is better than Margarito.

Yeh u mad

[viperz007]

Cotto fighting everyone >>> floyd fighting cherry's

u cant complain againts a fighter who fights everyone and then praise someone who been hiding on his skirt the whole fking time

[handwraps]

Genaro was past prime and Mayweather was his last fight so lets not act like that was a superb win when he got his ass kicked by a baby De La Hoya 3 years earlier. The point is Cotto beat undefeated PRIME fighters who then became Champions and made a name for themselves. All of those Floyd wins came against guys on their last legs.

Truth is if people want to discredit Cotto's resume, Then Mayweather should get it worst. In my opinion Cotto Faced better fighters overall. He's koed all of their commom opponents, with the exception of Mosley. And, has fought Boxers Mayweather never would think of fighting Margarito, pacquiao. I doubt Mayweather would fight Austin Trout. And has done it with less talent then Mayweather.

[BoxingGenius27]

Looked at Cotto's career and his W. The names are not of the greatest boxers but he beat 5 top 10 JWW and 5 top 10 WW when he fought them.

He didnt beat great fighters, but he was competitive against them. He didnt compete in an era of great or many good boxers, but he manage to beat most that share the same era.

If he had beat Tony the first time how that was going to change the perception about him? He beat a no defense brawler would be the argument. Beating Hatton at 140 was going to make a significant difference? You guys will find the same argument you use for Floyd and Pac. There is no way to make everyone happy around here.

I know some of the stans overate Cotto way too much. But some haters discredit him enough, that their favorite fighter best win becomes insignificant.

Exactly, Thanks for saving me time.

Retrospect is something else because it completely diminishes the experience we witnessed as it actually happened.

I could sit back and pick a part anyone's resume. But the truth is is TS is making a case and proving a point for Mayweather. I have no problem with that, but don't discredit everything Cotto has accomplished by saying he only beat 3 above average fighters. That's crap.

I can pick a part Corrales and Castillo's resume in a heartbeat. But, I'm trying to talk about Cotto here. They have nothing to do with Cotto. Somehow they were brought in the discussion cause like I said, TS is proving a point for Mayweather. Cotto and Floyd beat 4 of the same people. But Cotto really only gets credit for one (i.e. Mosley), while Floyd gets credit for beating Baldo cause Baldo beat Judah, who Cotto really gets no credit for beating.

I guess Floyd gets credit for beating Cotto, when Cotto was 4 years past his prime. But Cotto beat Mosley 3 years before Floyd did, but Floyd gets more credit for that fight because Mosley went on to beat Margarito after he lost to Cotto.

This is like a merry-go-round here. I can do this for days. Twist and turn the past retrospectively to prove my point.

It's like saying Floyd can't get credit today as a top 10 fighter because he didn't fight in SRL, Hearns, and Duran's day. Well the same applies to Cotto because all I'm hearing is "Cotto didn't duck fights, he beat 14 world champions, but because they weren't elite, then he has a slightly above resume". I don't agree with that philosophy. I've heard that same philosophy applied to Roy Jones and it's simply not fair cause you're basing your theory on when someone was born not how destructive they were against the competition they faced with in their generation.

This is why I asked the question, who was Cotto supposed to fight. All I got back was the same tier opponents he did fight. Again, Hatton wasn't elite in 04/05. Mayweather was better than Cotto, but he wasn't elite either. Again, I can pick a part Corrales and Castillo's resume in a heart beat.

This is just one huge merry-go-round that I can't take part in. I'll swallow my pride 4Corners, so if you want to believe your theory/logic is right, so be it. But you apply logic that anyone can use against any fighter in the history of boxing; which is flawed in my opinion.

That's all I have.

[BoxingGenius27]

Last thing. I remember a time in the WW division from 2006-2008 when it was at it's peak. we had:

Cintron
Marg
Williams
Mosley
Cotto
Quintana
Baldomir
Hatton
Clottey
Mayweather

The above guys fought each other and knocked shelf lives off each others career. This was a tourney that wasn't actually named a WW tourney. Again Cotto fought everyone put in front of him. But we have guys mentioning Vivian Harris and Mitchell as opponent's Cotto "could've fought". But when you look at these names, "at the time", Mayweather only fought 2 guys on the list and 1 wasn't even a WW.

I'm done

[Interloper]

Anything after his 2008 defeat to Margarito is irrelevant, because it ruined his career. Excluding everything post-Margarito, what we had was a fighter who:

Was undefeated, fought everybody, looked better against so called "mid-level" guys than most (i.e., usually knocked them out and in the early rounds at that) and was a world champion.

Never insulted anyone, complained, avoided, etc. If you don't like a pre-Margarito I Miguel Cotto, it doesn't say anything about the fighter, it's the other way around.

[Big_L]

cotto post-margarito is a lot like vargas post-trinidad. cotto was on his way to greatness but margarito took that from him. he was never the same fighter after that. he's still good enough to beat a lot of good fighters but not good enough to beat the great ones.

[HeroBando]

Uhhhhh Lazcano was coming off stopping Stevie Johnston and was the #1 Lightweight......

J. Diaz was actually a Top 5 Lightweight at the time, not a great win, decent win.

Look at their top wins.

Mosley, Clottey, Judah, Paulie, Quintana.

Mayweather (yes Castillo will get his due for their first fight, which most thought he won), Johnston, Lazcano, Corrales, Casamayor, J. Diaz.

It's clearly Castillo, I can't even understand how people don't see it. It's like because one guy beat a ton of mid level fighters, never beat the guy at his weight class, but has a big fan base, he's better.

Castillo beat the top guy at Lightweight over and over. Johnston, Mayweather, Lazcano, Corrales, and Casamayor were ALL top ranked fighters, not B level bringe contenders at the time.

Quintana beat the most feared fighter in boxing. Paulie was #2 at 140 I believe, and kicked the ass of Juan Diaz, who's a much better scalp than Julio Diaz. Lazcano never even won a paper belt. GTFO dude