It's not like he's an ATG or anything..... so who cares if Bradley has a better resume than guys who are largely untested?
historians will not attempt to compare Bradley to "those other guys"..... they will attempt to compare him to truly great fighters, greats who have a MUCH better resume than "those other guys".
I am a Bradley fan, he is a terrific fighter..... but in terms of legacy, Tim still has some work to do..... so when Bradley confirmed that due to "boxing politics" it is highly unlikely that he will face the top welters at 147, he lost a lot of public interest imho.
umm that was what the original debate was about when you came and quoted me. i agree, who cares, i was just answering what was being asked.
C'mon man, Danny Garcia, Keith Thurman, Shawn Porter, Erol Spence, do nothing for Tim at this point of his career. Sure itd be a good win BUT Tim Bradley has 2 wins against great fighters at WW in Marquez and Pacquiao. Theres only 1 fighter I know that has W's next to those names. Besides Tim already beat those so called "other guys" at 140 when he was unified champ. I do agree with you that he needs a lil more to prove though but he is 1st ballot HOF if he can pick up an alphabet belt at 154 and it doesnt even need to be a big name hes guaranteed induction,...
1) Marquez is not a genuine welter
2) Bradley did not beat Pacquiao
3) Bradley has not faced any of the top welters
I do believe that he was the man at 140, but folks will always raise the Khan question.
Bradley is a terrific fighter, but he needs to work on his welterweight resume in my book as - other than money - he has achieved very little legacy-wise since signing with Top Rank.
The fact that Tim was obviously promised the Pacquiao fight well-before it was announced or even discussed..... is telling.
Top Rank has done right by Bradley every step of the way through his career. Judging Bradley for being loyal because you want to see him fight PBC fighters is fucking absurd; take your complaints up with Haymon and Arum, not the fighters.
again, explain how pac was protected? you havent explain jack but keep insisting that manny is being protected.
I explained that I have had enough of delusional pac-tards.
1) Pac NEVER fought the best, not since 130.....
- not at 135
- not at 140
- not at 147, until the Mayweather cash-out
- not at 154
2) not only did Pacquiao never fight the best, he avoided the best and often selected guys who were CLEARLY on the slide..... a'la Cotto/Mosley/etc..... he benefited from some very slick matchmaking
3) until he fought Bradley (yet another in-house fight) Pacquiao had never faced a welter ranked higher than 5, and since then he has only fought Mayweather
4) boxing is all about matchmaking, and matchmaking is all about styles/timing..... there were a number of welters who grabbed that #3 spot..... at that point-in-time those guys were right on top of their game and at a high-point in their careers..... Pacquiao did not fight 1 of those guys, and yet Mayweather fought ALL of them
5) forget the other top opponents that Pac avoided, he ducked Mayweather for 5 years..... he either avoided Mayweather or he avoided the tests, take your pick
It was well-known..... you had to be relevant to land a Mayweather fight, but you had to be largely-irrelevant to land a Pacquiao fight.
Top Rank has done right by Bradley every step of the way through his career. Judging Bradley for being loyal because you want to see him fight PBC fighters is fucking absurd; take your complaints up with Haymon and Arum, not the fighters.
It has nothing to do with loyalty. If Bradley wasn't happy with the money/deal, he would (rightly) tell Arum to go fk himself..... with no thought to loyalty whatsoever. Tim did the right thing for him and his family, no question..... but it will not help his legacy.
Comment