Why do Fans Get Upset When Fighters are Willing to Fight Their Favorite Fighter?
Collapse
-
-
wait a minute, I thought the trend of respect were former champs in a resume. Why bring up Angulo? Ishida wtf?
I thought most of us were in an agreement that GGG beat Geale and as you stated Lemule. that's 2...
Lara: Alvarez, Trout, Williams, Smith, Molina, Zaveck.
I mean dat Work must count for something. Like when the boxing world went crazy or referenced Khan beating an old ass Barrera or Garcia and Maidana beating an old ass Morales.
Okay I might count Molina by even still he didn't win. Nor did he beat Alvarez.Comment
-
Fanboy mentality. They can't stand the fact that fighters actually believe they can beat their favorite fighter. It's really ******. They're just fighters felllas. They're not gods.Comment
-
GTFO, if Ishida and Ouma titles don't count than Zaveck, Molina, Smith, and Williams don't count. 2 where paper champs and other two won their titles at 147 years prior to Lara beating them.
Okay I might count Molina by even still he didn't win. Nor did he beat Alvarez.
but let's make it easier, compile Lara's champ opposition resume to GGG's champ opposition resume. ''world titles''Comment
-
Williams coming off a KO lost, I'll trade Geale for that. It's more than fair. Especially considering Williams did nothing at 154 and Geale was a former unified champ at 160 and only lost by SD to Barker. And even Barker wasn't blasted out by Martinez like Williams was.
Trout and Lemule same class, you can argue it's not but it doesn't change the reality. You can argue Cottos name value but it means very little to me. I only care about the fighter and where their at in their career.
You totally lose the arguement when you try to add weight to his resume by adding in the lost to Canelo. It's like you wanted to come up with more names but you couldn't so you just threw in Canelo hoping I wouldn't catch it.
So that's still leaves GGG with wins over Murray and Macklin and Lara isn't deep enough to make up for those two wins. Lara resume isn't bad but it isn't as good as GGG's.Comment
-
I pick GGG to beat Lara but you don't, you're telling me every reason why they SHOULDN'T fight. When GGG is fighting Curtis Stevens, you can't give me a valid reason why Lara can't be an opponent.Comment
-
I think GGG will win, that being said, Lara is 10 times better than anyone GGG has ever fought. Lara will be a great scalp for GGG's resume and something that you clowns can hold onto as a legitmate win for his embaressing career.Comment
-
Who did Lemuix beat? Who did Stevens beat? Who did Wade Beat? Who did Monroe beat? Who did Rubio beat? It's truly a pathetic resume that Lara would clearly be the best fighter on.Comment
-
There's no fighter in the top 1% of boxing who's 10x better than their peers.Comment
-
Angulo lost to Kirkland who lost to Ishida. So I'll call that a wash.
Williams coming off a KO lost, I'll trade Geale for that. It's more than fair. Especially considering Williams did nothing at 154 and Geale was a former unified champ at 160 and only lost by SD to Barker. And even Barker wasn't blasted out by Martinez like Williams was.
Trout and Lemule same class, you can argue it's not but it doesn't change the reality. You can argue Cottos name value but it means very little to me. I only care about the fighter and where their at in their career.
You totally lose the arguement when you try to add weight to his resume by adding in the lost to Canelo. It's like you wanted to come up with more names but you couldn't so you just threw in Canelo hoping I wouldn't catch it.
So that's still leaves GGG with wins over Murray and Macklin and Lara isn't deep enough to make up for those two wins. Lara resume isn't bad but it isn't as good as GGG's.Comment
Comment