Miguel Cotto

[SunSpace]

Cotto beat Canelo; that fight was a robbery.

Making loud noises while getting out-boxed doesn't win you a fight, no matter how loud the crowd screams. And one body shot in the last round doesn't change it either.

I saw the fight the way Mexico and Puerto Rico did: Cotto out-boxed Canelo.

[Sweet Jones]

Good fighter that fights almost anybody. He never won that big fight over the top fighters that he has faced.

He is not an ATG, HOF yes. I don't like when he runs out of the ring when he loses like a prima donna

This right here.

IMO, a lot of the critique thrown at Cotto is based on the fact that his fans continue to insist that his name gets mentioned with the true ATGs of his era (Mayweather, Pacquiao) when he's not on their level as far as skill, ability or accomplishment.

Like I said before, in a Peyton Manning/Tom Brady Era, he's the Drew Brees: great career and surefire HOF, but not a generational fighter.

And having his fans make excuses for his (at times) diva like behavior hasn't helped either.

[SunSpace]

This right here.

IMO, a lot of the critique thrown at Cotto is based on the fact that his fans continue to insist that his name gets mentioned with the true ATGs of his era (Mayweather, Pacquiao) when he's not on their level as far as skill, ability or accomplishment.

Like I said before, in a Peyton Manning/Tom Brady Era, he's the Drew Brees: great career and surefire HOF, but not a generational fighter.

And having his fans make excuses for his (at times) diva like behavior hasn't helped either.

Resume vs resume, Cotto is an ATG. He has a better resume than both Mayweather and Pacquiao. What you're saying is that he didn't have a long "undefeated" streak, like they did.

Well, that's simple. Mayweather didn't fight the best in their prime, while Cotto did. And while Pacquiao's resume comes about as close as any boxer's can get to Cotto's, Miguel's overall record is on a consistently higher level.

I'm not even going to bother with Mayweather's resume, because his is clearly below Cotto's. For arguments' sake, I'll tackle Pacquiao's:

Best Pacquiao Prime Wins:

1. Marquez
2. Hatton
3. Barrera
4. Morales
5. Bradley

Best Cotto Prime Wins:

1. Mosley
2. Quintana
3. Malignaggi
4. Torres
5. Bailey
6. Judah
7. Clottey
8. Corley
9. Ndou
10. Sosa


Overall, Cotto's resume is better than Pacquiao's.

And obviously Mayweather's.

What you guys are referencing (not that I blame you, because the media does it, too) are undefeated streaks.

And those have tons of asterisks, to say the least.

When you put overall competition into play, which is what truly should count, Cotto's career is on top.

If they are ATGs, Miguel Cotto is too.

[Sweet Jones]

Resume vs resume, Cotto is an ATG. He has a better resume than both Mayweather and Pacquiao. What you're saying is that he didn't have a long "undefeated" streak, like they did.

Well, that's simple. Mayweather didn't fight the best in their prime, while Cotto did. And while Pacquiao's resume comes about as close as any boxer's can get to Cotto's, Miguel's overall record is on a consistently higher level.

I'm not even going to bother with Mayweather's resume, because his is clearly below Cotto's. For arguments' sake, I'll tackle Pacquiao's:

Best Pacquiao Prime Wins:

1. Marquez
2. Hatton
3. Barrera
4. Morales
5. Bradley

Best Cotto Prime Wins:

1. Mosley
2. Quintana
3. Malignaggi
4. Torres
5. Bailey
6. Judah
7. Clottey
8. Corley
9. Ndou
10. Sosa


Overall, Cotto's resume is better than Pacquiao's.

And obviously Mayweather's.

What you guys are referencing (not that I blame you, because the media does it, too) are undefeated streaks.

And those have tons of asterisks, to say the least.

When you put overall competition into play, which is what truly should count, Cotto's career is on top.

If they are ATGs, Miguel Cotto is too.

Exhibit A of Cotto Fans and their overrating of him.

[Death_Adder]

Cotto was always good at what did best, bleed and kneel

[SunSpace]

Exhibit A of Cotto Fans and their overrating of him.

What's your argument?

Saying we're overrating him doesn't make it true, unless you can back it up with evidence.

[Sweet Jones]

What's your argument?

Saying we're overrating him doesn't make it true, unless you can back it up with evidence.

There is no argument. Watching you jump through hoops to try and make Cotto's resume better than Manny's is all the 'evidence' I need to back my point.

You actually compared victories over Carlos Quintana and Bailey to those over Barrerra, Morales and Marquez proves my point. And the fact that you left off Pac's win over the very same prime (allegedly) ATG in Cotto shows a level of insincerity to this.

You try to pizz on Mayweather's resume. Yet he also beat Cotto AND 4 of the fighters you listed as part of Cotto's best wins (and 3 of those BEFORE Cotto fought them).

Getting in the ring with tough comp is plausible. But you must WIN. Cotto lost ALOT of those tough fights, including to the very same 2 fighters you wish to hold him at the same level (PBF/Pac). And Mayweather would have been KILLED in the media for cherrpicking had he even attempted to fight most of those other dudes on Cotto's list.

No shame in what Cotto's accomplished. But there are levels to this isht, and no matter how much you wish it to be, Cotto is NOT on the highest level.

Deal with it.

[SunSpace]

There is no argument. Watching you jump through hoops to try and make Cotto's resume better than Manny's is all the 'evidence' I need to back my point.

You actually compared victories over Carlos Quintana and Bailey to those over Barrerra, Morales and Marquez proves my point. And the fact that you left off Pac's win over the very same prime (allegedly) ATG in Cotto shows a level of insincerity to this.

You try to pizz on Mayweather's resume. Yet he also beat Cotto AND 4 of the fighters you listed as part of Cotto's best wins (and 3 of those BEFORE Cotto fought them).

Getting in the ring with tough comp is plausible. But you must WIN. Cotto lost ALOT of those tough fights, including to the very same 2 fighters you wish to hold him at the same level (PBF/Pac). And Mayweather would have been KILLED in the media for cherrpicking had he even attempted to fight most of those other dudes on Cotto's list.

No shame in what Cotto's accomplished. But there are levels to this isht, and no matter how much you wish it to be, Cotto is NOT on the highest level.

Deal with it.

Are you serious? Mayweather's resume is loaded with cherrypicks. LOL! Even Mayweather fans acknowledge that much. Wow. That's basically common knowledge: he played the business game as the best ever, not the legacy game. -_- Is this your first year into boxing or something? Casual? I hope so, because that's about the only thing that excuses not knowing that.

What you obviously missed is that I was listing prime wins. The Cotto Pacquiao fought had recently come off that plaster assault by Margarito, had a rookie trainer, and was weight drained, which even Roach acknowledges. And the Cotto Mayweather fought was even worse, with the only good aspect to it being that he wasn't weight drained for that fight.

Those are not prime wins.

And I wasn't directly comparing fighters, either. I was, literally, just listing off names at random. Cotto's resume is so stacked, you can take the liberty of doing so.

Just because fighters a or b on the list didn't necessarily end their careers as legends, doesn't mean they weren't top competition. You can make the argument that a certain fighter is better than another, sure, but that's not enough to ward off a barrage of consistent, top-level competition. Top-level consistency is what should count, and Cotto has a better overall resume because of that.

I'll even simplify this with an analogy. Let's say we have two big music stars. One has a year of classic hits, while another has 10 years of top hits, although not all necessarily on a classic level.

Which is the artist with the better resume?

Easy choice, if you ask me. Top level consistency throughout a career, including quite a few classics, is better than just a year of memorable execution.

In fact, in music, they refer to acts like those as one hit wonders, precisely because they couldn't maintain their momentum. It's not a good thing.

Unfortunately, in both Pacquiao's and Mayweather's careers, a ton of cherrypicking was involved. Even their best fans acknowledge this much. No one can look me straight in the eye and claim that stretch of faded names one after another, such as Mosley, Margarito, Clottey, etc, was facing the best. Please.

Cotto fought those people when they were monsters. It's not the same thing. Don't pretend it is.

And as for Mayweather, sure, he shared a few opponents with Cotto, but that doesn't eliminate the blatant cherrypicking he took part in the rest of his career to avoid defeat, including ducking Cotto, Margarito, and Pacquiao.

He was the best in a business sense, but not legacy-wise. Don't get it twisted.

Not to mention that no one would have criticized Mayweather for facing those names, because they were actual top-level threats at the time, especially for an up and coming fighter.

You're imagining that Cotto fought all of them later on, which he didn't. Not that it makes any difference, anyway. They were still top-level, unlike many of Mayweather's opponents.

Cotto's career easily is better than Mayweather's because Cotto actually fought the best. He didn't just retire, come back when the coast was clear, and cherrypick his way to an undefeated record.

No one respects that, outside of the business-aspect of it.

Legacy-wise, Cotto will be respected far more, because he has a better resume than Mayweather. No way around it.

There are levels to this, and Cotto was on a consistently higher level.

Deal with it.

[Sweet Jones]

Are you serious? Mayweather's resume is loaded with cherrypicks. LOL! Even Mayweather fans acknowledge that much. Wow. That's basically common knowledge: he played the business game as the best ever, not the legacy game. -_- Is this your first year into boxing or something? Casual? I hope so, because that's about the only thing that excuses not knowing that.

What you obviously missed is that I was listing prime wins. The Cotto Pacquiao fought had recently come off that plaster assault by Margarito, had a rookie trainer, and was weight drained, which even Roach acknowledges. And the Cotto Mayweather fought was even worse, with the only good aspect to it being that he wasn't weight drained for that fight.

Those are not prime wins.

And I wasn't directly comparing fighters, either. I was, literally, just listing off names at random. Cotto's resume is so stacked, you can take the liberty of doing so.

Just because fighters a or b on the list didn't necessarily end their careers as legends, doesn't mean they weren't top competition. You can make the argument that a certain fighter is better than another, sure, but that's not enough to ward off a barrage of consistent, top-level competition. Top-level consistency is what should count, and Cotto has a better overall resume because of that.

I'll even simplify this with an analogy. Let's say we have two big music stars. One has a year of classic hits, while another has 10 years of top hits, although not all necessarily on a classic level.

Which is the artist with the better resume?

Easy choice, if you ask me. Top level consistency throughout a career, including quite a few classics, is better than just a year of memorable execution.

In fact, in music, they refer to acts like those as one hit wonders, precisely because they couldn't maintain their momentum. It's not a good thing.

Unfortunately, in both Pacquiao's and Mayweather's careers, a ton of cherrypicking was involved. Even their best fans acknowledge this much. No one can look me straight in the eye and claim that stretch of faded names one after another, such as Mosley, Margarito, Clottey, etc, was facing the best. Please.

Cotto fought those people when they were monsters. It's not the same thing. Don't pretend it is.

And as for Mayweather, sure, he shared a few opponents with Cotto, but that doesn't eliminate the blatant cherrypicking he took part in the rest of his career to avoid defeat, including ducking Cotto, Margarito, and Pacquiao.

He was the best in a business sense, but not legacy-wise. Don't get it twisted.

Not to mention that no one would have criticized Mayweather for facing those names, because they were actual top-level threats at the time, especially for an up and coming fighter.

You're pretending that Cotto fought them later on, which he didn't. Not that it makes much of a difference, anyway. They were still top-level, unlike many of Mayweather's opponents.

Cotto's career easily is better than Mayweather's because Cotto actually fought the best. He didn't just retire, come back when the coast was clear, and cherrypick his way to an undefeated record.

No one respects that, outside of the business-aspect of it.

Legacy-wise, Cotto will be respected far more, because he has a better resume than Mayweather. No way around it.

There are levels to this, and Cotto was on a consistently higher level.

Deal with it.

Exhibit B.

[Don Pichardo]

Stylistically I think Cotto is the best in boxing. His small gas tank was always his downside but the man can fight. I watch Cotto fights for training tips. But Cotto himself (especially the last few years) seems like a douche. Oh well though, he made a lot of $ so more power to him!

greent for truth.