Per the article above Guerrero was rated 3 years ago as pound for pound #10 by Ring Magazine. He was rated as #10 for roughly 6 months, until he lost to Mayweather the following May...
Per the article above Guerrero was rated 3 years ago as pound for pound #10 by Ring Magazine. He was rated as #10 for roughly 6 months, until he lost to Mayweather the following May...
He beat a shot version of Berto to earn that #10 P4P ranking?
P4P positions mean **** If you don't have Rigo and Roman Gonzalez on it, its all dictated to who you are and where you're from.
He beat a shot version of Berto to earn that #10 P4P ranking?
P4P positions mean **** If you don't have Rigo and Roman Gonzalez on it, its all dictated to who you are and where you're from.
That infamous Ring p4p list featuring Guerrero was awful. Guerrero getting the number 10 spot for beating Berto, as well as Broner being given the number 5 spot for beating DeMarco
Its cool to debate, but when he is pulling **** like Bradley out of his azz, it becomes pointless.
So you're saying Bradley wouldn't beat a drained version of Canelo and he wouldn't beat a version of Pacquiao who had an injured shoulder?
Hmmm okay then, that's your opinion.
Per the article above Guerrero was rated 3 years ago as pound for pound #10 by Ring Magazine. He was rated as #10 for roughly 6 months, until he lost to Mayweather the following May...
Guererro was P4P according to The Ring when he fought Mayweather.
thanks
Originally posted by Red Cyclone
So beating someone famous matters more than their actual skill level?
Hall of fame has nothing to do with the level a fighter is on hell there is some very dodgy names on that list its not a list of the best fighters of all time its a popularity contest.
Jesus man that list you posted for Wlad was pathetic
Comment