Considering that if he hadn't fought them, the same people who discredit the wins would be on here talking about how he ducked them, I'd say that they were credible fights. Not legacy fights, but up and comers on hot streaks.
yes if floyd fought pac instead people would be saying how he ducked ortiz and guerrero
They sure were credible, considering how bad welterweight was at that time. Now with Thurman and company about, it's gonna get real interesting. I'm calling the 1st duck. Broner scurries back to 135 instead of fighting Thurman.
So who would be credible at ww? Following your logic Bradley's not credible Provod proved that. Pacs not credible Marquez proved that. So I ask again, who's credible at ww? Nobody I guess. Haters logic, no one is credible for Floyd, Pac, or Marquez.
welterweight is just weak that beating berto would elevate you to top of the division.
how i wish mosley was the one who exposed berto had that fight pushed through. the mystic of berto being undefeated would've not been there when he fought ortiz and ortiz would not have that fake aura that he beat the undefeated berto and therefore he deserved to fight floyd. i mean ortiz can't even make it to the top of 140 but the moment he beat berto, he became the real deal in the minds of the sheeps.
They would have been credible opponents for anyone else in the world around that weight.......so considering the logic and though process around here, OF COURSE THEY WEREN'T CREDIBLE FOR FLOYD.
I liked the Ortiz/Mayweather match-up (though I didn't think much of Berto back then), but the ending cheapened it. Ortiz and Berto's recent performances haven't helped. As for Ghost, he put himself in a great position so yes it was credible, but I was indifferent to the match-up. Let's see how Ghost continues to perform at WW.
Comment