Comments Thread For: Daily Bread Mailbag: Mayweather-McGregor, Mosley, Ward

[harry-greb]

you said..... despite the fact that Pacquiao did not win a world title at featherweight..... IN YOUR OPINION, Pacquiao was "the man" at 126..... don't bullshht me now, you actually said that

and you based that assertion on the fact that Barrera had beaten Hamed 3 years earlier

well, Marquez was the best featherweight, so stop your nonsense

you would know that if you watched the Norwood fight

FACT: Pac did not beat Marquez, who many say won that fight

so, when you awarded Pacquiao an honorary world title you were pushing shht uphill with a pointed stick

also, Morales would have beaten Pacquiao at 126, just like he beat him at 130 less than a year later

stop handing world titles around you wally

I'm having a cup of coffee and I'm shaking my head at your post. I'm an asshat and a wally!!! You need some work on your insult game. This debate is unwinnable for u yet u refuse to see the light.
Here we go again

Your first point, show me where I said that

Your second point, Barrera beat naz (the lineal featherweight champ) in April 2001. He then defended against Enrique Sanchez in September, Erik morales in June 2002, johnny Tapia in Nov 2002, Kevin Kelly in April 2003. He won all those fights so he was still lineal champion because he had dethroned naz. He then fought pacquiao in november 2003 and lost. Ipso facto pacquiao becomes champ. I can't make it any clearer for you then that.

Your third point "well Marquez was the best featherweight". That's an opinion not a fact. The records of the fighters eg. Norwood beating Marquez are facts.

Your fourth point, " pacquiao did not beat Marquez" is another opinion, not a fact.

Your fifth point, **** uphill with a stick??!!! Opinion!!!

Your sixth point "morales would have beaten pacquiao at 126" opinion. Wudda shudda cudda

All your points are opinions. He wudda beat him,he shudda won that fight, he cudda beat him at 126

Facts my boy, facts.
We're in dangerous territory when we confuse opinions with facts.

[aboutfkntime]

I'm having a cup of coffee and I'm shaking my head at your post. I'm an asshat and a wally!!! You need some work on your insult game. This debate is unwinnable for u yet u refuse to see the light.
Here we go again

Your first point, show me where I said that

Your second point, Barrera beat naz (the lineal featherweight champ) in April 2001. He then defended against Enrique Sanchez in September, Erik morales in June 2002, johnny Tapia in Nov 2002, Kevin Kelly in April 2003. He won all those fights so he was still lineal champion because he had dethroned naz. He then fought pacquiao in november 2003 and lost. Ipso facto pacquiao becomes champ. I can't make it any clearer for you then that.

Your third point "well Marquez was the best featherweight". That's an opinion not a fact. The records of the fighters eg. Norwood beating Marquez are facts.

Your fourth point, " pacquiao did not beat Marquez" is another opinion, not a fact.

Your fifth point, **** uphill with a stick??!!! Opinion!!!

Your sixth point "morales would have beaten pacquiao at 126" opinion. Wudda shudda cudda

All your points are opinions. He wudda beat him,he shudda won that fight, he cudda beat him at 126

Facts my boy, facts.
We're in dangerous territory when we confuse opinions with facts.

there is no such thing as ipso facto in boxing, you fkn wally


FACT: Pacquiao did not win a featherweight title

FACT: Pacquiao did not even beat Marquez

FACT: Pacquiao would have lost to Morales at 126, just like he lost to him at 130


stop handing around world titles you ignorant fanboy clown


and don't argue with me about Morales you tard..... if you state with any certainty that I cannot be sure that Morales would have beaten Pac at 126..... then you cannot be sure that Pac would have beaten Morales at 126..... because he could not beat Marquez at 126, and he lost to Morales at 130


wow, you fcuked that alt account with blatant ******ity

[aboutfkntime]

I'm having a cup of coffee and I'm shaking my head at your post. I'm an asshat and a wally!!! You need some work on your insult game. This debate is unwinnable for u yet u refuse to see the light.
Here we go again

Your first point, show me where I said that

..... you said that Pacquiao became "the man" at 126 by beating Barrera in 2003..... and you justified that comment by writing a novel about Naseem Hamed.....

"Barrera becoming what? That's right, becoming THE MAN. THE LINEAL CHAMP.".....

..... why would you even deny saying that you idiot?

Your second point, Barrera beat naz (the lineal featherweight champ) in April 2001. He then defended against Enrique Sanchez in September, Erik morales in June 2002, johnny Tapia in Nov 2002, Kevin Kelly in April 2003. He won all those fights so he was still lineal champion because he had dethroned naz. He then fought pacquiao in november 2003 and lost. Ipso facto pacquiao becomes champ. I can't make it any clearer for you then that.

so fkn what..... ?

FACT: Pac did not win a title at 126, and awarding him one because of lineage would be fanboy ******ity

Adonis Stevenson holds the lineage at LHW, but only a fool would rank him ahead of Ward/Kovalev..... and yet, you are doing exactly that with Barrera..... Canelo holds the lineage at MW, but only a fool would rank him ahead of Golovkin at 160..... and yet, there you go, doing exactly that with Barrera

foolio

so what if Barrera beat Hamed 3 years earlier, he was NOT "the man" at featherweight..... because Marquez was

and btw, Marquez beat Barrera when they fought, so good luck insinuating that Barrera was better

read, and weep.....

The Ring rankings 2003 - featherweight
1. Juan Manuel Marquez
2. Marco Antonio Barrera
3. Scott Harrison
4. Manuel Medina
5. Johnny Tapia
6. Derrick Gainer
7. In-Jin Chi
8. Michael Brodie
9. William Abelyan
10. Rocky Juarez

FACT: Pacquiao did not beat Marquez at 126, and he did not beat Morales either..... in 2003 Marquez was ranked higher than Barrera, and in 2002 Morales was ranked higher than Marquez..... so you started waving your pom-poms prematurely you silly fangirl

Your third point "well Marquez was the best featherweight". That's an opinion not a fact. The records of the fighters eg. Norwood beating Marquez are facts.

I saw Marquez beat Norwood, you read the result on boxrec..... one of us is informed, and the other one is not

but that result is irrelevant because..... FACT: Marquez was ranked #1 by The Ring

The Ring rankings 2003 - featherweight
1. Juan Manuel Marquez

Your fourth point, " pacquiao did not beat Marquez" is another opinion, not a fact.

FACT: Pacquiao did not beat Marquez at 126.....

Your fifth point, **** uphill with a stick??!!! Opinion!!!

yep, you are..... "pushing **** uphill with a pointed stick"..... by attempting to persuade anyone that Pac should be awarded an imaginary title at featherweight..... because a) he did not win a title from Barrera..... b) he did not beat Marquez..... c) he did not beat Morales

Your sixth point "morales would have beaten pacquiao at 126" opinion. Wudda shudda cudda

All your points are opinions. He wudda beat him,he shudda won that fight, he cudda beat him at 126

the best version of Morales that Pacquiao fought, beat him..... and Morales was better at 122/126 than he was at 130+..... you saying that it is only opinion that Morales would have beaten Pacquiao, is matched by your lesser-opinion that Pacquiao could have beaten Morales

why is your opinion lesser than mine in that example..... ?

because..... FACT: Morales beat Pacquiao at 130

Facts my boy, facts.
We're in dangerous territory when we confuse opinions with facts.

gloriously ironic, considering the above

stop handing around world titles you silly fanboy

[harry-greb]

there is no such thing as ipso facto in boxing, you fkn wally


FACT: Pacquiao did not win a featherweight title

FACT: Pacquiao did not even beat Marquez

FACT: Pacquiao would have lost to Morales at 126, just like he lost to him at 130


stop handing around world titles you ignorant fanboy clown


and don't argue with me about Morales you tard..... if you state with any certainty that I cannot be sure that Morales would have beaten Pac at 126..... then you cannot be sure that Pac would have beaten Morales at 126..... because he could not beat Marquez at 126, and he lost to Morales at 130


wow, you fcuked that alt account with blatant ******ity

Ah, name calling!!! The last refuge of a beaten man.
You're still having trouble with the whole facts/opinions angle.

Your first "fact" pacquiao did not win a featherweight title. You are correct. He won THE featherweight title. It wasn't awarded by me, its not my opinion, It was awarded by history. He beat THE man.

Your second fact is correct. I was wrong about that. I forgot their fight at featherweight was a draw. Hold my hands up.

Your third "fact" is an opinion. Pacquiao would have lost to morales at 126 is an opinion not a fact!!!

When did I say I was sure pacquiao would have beaten morales at 126???? If you could pull up that quote for me I'd be greatful.

Believe me this is my only account.

Nothing to say when I compared naz's opponents to Marquez's opponents (murderers row)??

Also nothing to say when you ranked naz #5 and I educated you on when each fighter entered featherweight and who they fought??
Do u hear that? Crickets!!!!!!!

[harry-greb]

..... you said that Pacquiao became "the man" at 126 by beating Barrera in 2003..... and you justified that comment by writing a novel about Naseem Hamed.....

"Barrera becoming what? That's right, becoming THE MAN. THE LINEAL CHAMP.".....

..... why would you even deny saying that you idiot?





so fkn what..... ?

FACT: Pac did not win a title at 126, and awarding him one because of lineage would be fanboy ******ity

Adonis Stevenson holds the lineage at LHW, but only a fool would rank him ahead of Ward/Kovalev..... and yet, you are doing exactly that with Barrera..... Canelo holds the lineage at MW, but only a fool would rank him ahead of Golovkin at 160..... and yet, there you go, doing exactly that with Barrera

foolio

so what if Barrera beat Hamed 3 years earlier, he was NOT "the man" at featherweight..... because Marquez was

and btw, Marquez beat Barrera when they fought, so good luck insinuating that Barrera was better

read, and weep.....

The Ring rankings 2003 - featherweight
1. Juan Manuel Marquez
2. Marco Antonio Barrera
3. Scott Harrison
4. Manuel Medina
5. Johnny Tapia
6. Derrick Gainer
7. In-Jin Chi
8. Michael Brodie
9. William Abelyan
10. Rocky Juarez

FACT: Pacquiao did not beat Marquez at 126, and he did not beat Morales either..... in 2003 Marquez was ranked higher than Barrera, and in 2002 Morales was ranked higher than Marquez..... so you started waving your pom-poms prematurely you silly fangirl





I saw Marquez beat Norwood, you read the result on boxrec..... one of us is informed, and the other one is not

but that result is irrelevant because..... FACT: Marquez was ranked #1 by The Ring

The Ring rankings 2003 - featherweight
1. Juan Manuel Marquez





FACT: Pacquiao did not beat Marquez at 126.....





yep, you are..... "pushing **** uphill with a pointed stick"..... by attempting to persuade anyone that Pac should be awarded an imaginary title at featherweight..... because a) he did not win a title from Barrera..... b) he did not beat Marquez..... c) he did not beat Morales





the best version of Morales that Pacquiao fought, beat him..... and Morales was better at 122/126 than he was at 130+..... you saying that it is only opinion that Morales would have beaten Pacquiao, is matched by your lesser-opinion that Pacquiao could have beaten Morales

why is your opinion lesser than mine in that example..... ?

because..... FACT: Morales beat Pacquiao at 130





gloriously ironic, considering the above

stop handing around world titles you silly fanboy

I have to scroll up to deal with each of your points so this may take a while.
Calm down with the name calling!!!
An idiot, asshat tard fanboy fangirl, my feelings are starting to get hurt. No I'm joking, name-call away good sir.
Point 1. There's a mix up. Its not my opinion that Barrera became featherweight champion by beating naz. I didn't designate him champ. The history books and most right thinking people did.

Point 2. Pacquiao won THE featherweight title by beating Barrera. Once again I didn't award him that status. History and most right thinking people did.

Point 3. I had to take a second look at this. You actually acknowledge that Stevenson and canelo hold the lineage in their weight classes. This makes me smile. In your first few posts u said something along the lines of lineage doesn't belong to boxing. Its to do with family tree s or something. I can't remember your exact quote but to acknowledge superman and canelo has holding the lineage is progress. We are getting somewhere!!!
Canelo and GGG are fighting soon to sort out middleweight and hopefully stevenson fights ward.

Point 4. How can u still deny that naz was the man at featherweight. Just compare naz's and marquez's opponents side by side and tell me what I'm missing.
And to use your pacquiao did not beat Marquez at featherweight line,
Marquez did not beat Barrera at featherweight. And I never insinuated Barrera was better. Stick to what I've said. Leave insinuations out of it.

Point 5. The ring rankings.
Didn't you compare the ring to playboy in an earlier post?
And now you are using them to further your argument.
Nice try, but they are clearly wrong or you've altered them.
Are they from the ring website or where did u get them?
Google the ring ratings 2003 and you'll find them on boxrec.
Who sits above Marquez as champion??? Manny pacquiao.
Oohhh can u feel the burn????
I think its u who shud "read and weep", son!!

Point 6. I already admitted I got the Marquez pacquiao featherweight clash wrong. How cud I have forgot about that draw. My bad

Point 7 Manny won THE featherweight title from Barrera

Point 8. An opinion (lesser or greater) is just that. An opinion. You think that because morales beat pacquiao at 130, he would have beat him at 126. I've no problem with that opinion. But its an opinion, its not a fact. Morales could very well have beaten pacquiao at 126. Well never know.morales beat Manny at 130. That's an indisputable fact. Their fight at 130 was close. Don't get me wrong morales won by a round or 2. Manny got a bad cut in that fight if I recall. Anyway it was a great fight.
Also I don't recall giving my opinion that pacquiao wudda beaten morales at 126. Pull up where I said that.

Point 9. I don't get the gloriously ironic bit, but maybe because I've been typing this for ****ing ages and my eyes are turning square.

Point 10. Who am I a silly fanboy of. Is it pacquiao?? Love pacquiao but I love those 3 Mexican assassins just as much.
Heart, balls, machismo and unbelievable boxing skill. The Leonard hagler hearns Duran of this generation.
Finished. Thank **** for that

[aboutfkntime]

Ah, name calling!!! The last refuge of a beaten man.
You're still having trouble with the whole facts/opinions angle.

FACT: Pacquiao did not win a title at featherweight

but, your humorous attempt to award him one anyway, is amusing

Your first "fact" pacquiao did not win a featherweight title. You are correct.

so, you should have just left it there..... without the bullshht

He won THE featherweight title. It wasn't awarded by me, its not my opinion, It was awarded by history. He beat THE man.

kid, for the last time..... " the man " is not the lineal recipient

" the man " is the guy who proved he is the best in his division

FACT: Pac did not beat Marquez, and he did not beat Morales

FACT: Pac did not win a title at featherweight

OPINION: Morales would have beaten Pacquiao at FW, based on the fact that Morales beat Pac at 130, despite being a better fighter at 122/126.....

FACT: someone who is accurately described as "the man" does not have one fighter he couldn't beat, and one fighter he most likely couldn't beat because he lost to him 1 division higher..... so, GROW UP

according to you, Adonis Stevenson is "the man" at 175, and Canelo Alvarez is "the man" at 160..... so you need to smarten up, that fanboy rubbish does not work with knowledgeable observers

Your second fact is correct. I was wrong about that. I forgot their fight at featherweight was a draw. Hold my hands up.

you are attempting to argue that Pacquiao should be awarded an imaginary title at featherweight because he is "the man"..... so how the fk could you forget that Pacquiao did not even beat Marquez?

FACT: a guy who forgot that Pacquiao did not beat Marquez at 126, should not be arguing that Pacquiao should be awarded an imaginary featherweight title

I told you, stop handing around world titles you muppet

Your third "fact" is an opinion. Pacquiao would have lost to morales at 126 is an opinion not a fact!!!

When did I say I was sure pacquiao would have beaten morales at 126???? If you could pull up that quote for me I'd be greatful.

correct, it is my opinion that Morales would have beaten Pacquiao at 126

your opinion, is that Pac should be awarded a "I love you Manny" title, because you THINK that he was the best featherweight..... my opinion, that Morales would have beaten Pacquiao at 126, holds more weight than your opinion..... based on these 2 facts.....

FACT: Morales beat Pacquiao less than a year later at 130
FACT: Morales was a better fighter at 122/126, than 130

those two facts alone, make it impossible for you to categorically state that Pac was the best fighter at 126..... let alone the fact that many knowledgeable observers think that Marquez beat Pacquiao in their first fight

Believe me this is my only account.

then you should treat it with more respect

Nothing to say when I compared naz's opponents to Marquez's opponents (murderers row)??

I had plenty to say, but you ignored it..... including this gem

FACT: Marquez was ranked #1, ahead of Barrera

The Ring rankings 2003 - featherweight
1. Juan Manuel Marquez
2. Marco Antonio Barrera
3. Scott Harrison
4. Manuel Medina
5. Johnny Tapia
6. Derrick Gainer
7. In-Jin Chi
8. Michael Brodie
9. William Abelyan
10. Rocky Juarez

and yet, you decided to award Pac an imaginary title

based on nothing but bullshht

Also nothing to say when you ranked naz #5 and I educated you on when each fighter entered featherweight and who they fought??
Do u hear that? Crickets!!!!!!!

your boxrec copy/paste was humorous, considering the fact that I actually saw most of those fights

once again..... according to you, Barrera's claim to fame is beating Hamed..... so you ran around handing out world titles..... and yet, Marquez was ranked higher than Barrera LOL

I get it, you just love Manny..... don't ya

[aboutfkntime]

I love pacquiao

let's cut a long story short.....

FACT: Pacquiao did not win a FW title by beating Barrera

and, you simply cannot award Pac an imaginary title at 126 because

1) he did not beat Marquez
2) he did not beat Morales, who beat him at 130 less than a year later

stop telling cool stories bro

you are making yourself look ******

Pac is a helluva fighter, and nobody said otherwise, get a grip !!

[harry-greb]

FACT: Pacquiao did not win a title at featherweight

but, your humorous attempt to award him one anyway, is amusing
You keep saying that I awarded him the featherweight title. And I keep saying he earned it by beating the featherweight champ. Its not just me who recognizes him, its respected historians, journalists and record-keeping websites.




so, you should have just left it there..... without the bullshht





kid, for the last time..... " the man " is not the lineal recipient

" the man " is the guy who proved he is the best in his division
I have already acknowledged there are sometimes anomalies in terms of lineal champions. Canelo being the middleweight champion and stevenson being lights heavyweight champion. But most of the time the best in the division will become lineal champion. When GGG beats canelo he will become lineal champion. Don't think ward and Stevenson will fight but we live in hope. Also nobody thought Carlos baldomir was the best welterweight in 2006 but he was lineal champion when he bear zab Judah. Then Floyd dethroned. Every sport is littered with underdogs who come from nowhere to win worldtitles or big championships in their respective sports. In england Leicester city won the premiership 2 years ago but nobody thinks they are the best team in the league. And nobody is refusing to recognize them as champions in 2016.
In tennis Goran ivanisovic won Wimbledon in 2001. He was a wild card entrant. Nobody game him a hope in hell. But he won it. Nobody said "you're not the champ because you weren't the top ranked player and u didn't beat pete Sampras". Nobody thinks he was a better player than Pete Sampras or aggassi, but on that one day he shocked the world. You name the sport and you will find upsets and underdog stories.
FACT: Pac did not beat Marquez, and he did not beat Morales
PAC did not beat Marquez but Marquez did not beat PAC either.
He did not beat morales but morales did not beat him either.

FACT: Pac did not win a title at featherweight
He won THE title at featherweight.

OPINION: Morales would have beaten Pacquiao at FW, based on the fact that Morales beat Pac at 130, despite being a better fighter at 122/126.....
You are conveniently forgetting that pacquiao knocked out morales in the 10th round of their rematch 10 months later!!!!

FACT: someone who is accurately described as "the man" does not have one fighter he couldn't beat, and one fighter he most likely couldn't beat because he lost to him 1 division higher..... so, GROW UP
Every ****in fighter has a fighter they couldn't beat, or they'd all be undefeated. Nonsense. Pacquiao knocked out morales one division higher so what are u talking about???
And if u rate Marquez as number 1 featherweight why couldn't he beat pacquiao at that weight???????? You're drowning here son. Your own argument is killing ya

according to you, Adonis Stevenson is "the man" at 175, and Canelo Alvarez is "the man" at 160..... so you need to smarten up, that fanboy rubbish does not work with knowledgeable observers
Its not according to me. How many times do I have to say that?? HISTORY says it.




you are attempting to argue that Pacquiao should be awarded an imaginary title at featherweight because he is "the man"..... so how the fk could you forget that Pacquiao did not even beat Marquez?
Pacquiao shouldn't be awarded anything. He TOOK the featherweight title from Barrera.
I made a mistake on their first fight. Ever made a mistake?? They fought so many times that I confused their first and second fights?
U keep saying that pacquiao did not beat Marquez. That's true but there's a flip side to that coin. Marquez did not beat pacquiao!!!!
So to use your reasoning, how can u call Marquez " the man" at featherweight if he didn't beat pacquiao???

FACT: a guy who forgot that Pacquiao did not beat Marquez at 126, should not be arguing that Pacquiao should be awarded an imaginary featherweight title
I made a mistake. You're making a huge deal deal of it.
MARQUEZ DID NOT BEAT PACQUIAO EITHER so how can u call him THE MAN.

I told you, stop handing around world titles you muppet
add Muppet to the list







correct, it is my opinion that Morales would have beaten Pacquiao at 126
entitled to your opinion but we can't be certain.
your opinion, is that Pac should be awarded a "I love you Manny" title, because you THINK that he was the best featherweight..... my opinion, that Morales would have beaten Pacquiao at 126, holds more weight than your opinion..... based on these 2 facts.....
pacquiao beat Barrera who beat naz who was clearly top dog at featherweight. I accept that him and Marquez never fought but once again if u look at their records at the time, naz was fighting far far tougher competition than Marquez was. now if its your opinion that marquez would have beaten naz, that's fine. but its an opinion. its my opinion that naz would have won that fight. again its only on opinion. their boxing records are facts. the names on their records when they were both at featherweight are facts.

FACT: Morales beat Pacquiao less than a year later at 130
FACT: Morales was a better fighter at 122/126, than 130
pacquiao stopped morales 10 months after their first fight.
even if morales was a better fighter at 122/126 its still not a FACT that he wudda beat pacquiao at featherweight.

those two facts alone, make it impossible for you to categorically state that Pac was the best fighter at 126..... let alone the fact that many knowledgeable observers think that Marquez beat Pacquiao in their first fight
Its also impossible for u to categorically state that he wasnt .
No no no don't do that with the "most observers think....."
They are opinions.




then you should treat it with more respect
I haven't resorted to name calling





I had plenty to say, but you ignored it..... including this gem

FACT: Marquez was ranked #1, ahead of Barrera

The Ring rankings 2003 - featherweight
1. Juan Manuel Marquez
2. Marco Antonio Barrera
3. Scott Harrison
4. Manuel Medina
5. Johnny Tapia
6. Derrick Gainer
7. In-Jin Chi
8. Michael Brodie
9. William Abelyan
10. Rocky Juarez

and yet, you decided to award Pac an imaginary title

based on nothing but bullshht
Where did u get those rankings. Seriously, I don't know where to start. Why is Barrera ranked number 2?? Because pacquiao had dethroned him. And has it not occurred to u that pacquiao is missing from that list. Why is that???? Because he's above Marquez with a c next to his name. C for champion!!!!! Your eagerness to show Marquez with a 1 beside his name has brought u down!!!!
Please tell me the website u got those rankings from??? I have to see it with my own eyes.






your boxrec copy/paste was humorous, considering the fact that I actually saw most of those fights
What does it matter that u saw most of those fights??? I saw them too.
once again..... according to you, Barrera's claim to fame is beating Hamed..... so you ran around handing out world titles..... and yet, Marquez was ranked higher than Barrera LOL
When u go back and look at that website where u got those rankings, you're going to have an "oh ****" moment. The look on your face, priceless!!!!!!

I get it, you just love Manny..... don't ya

I love a lot of fighters, Manny and Marquez included

[harry-greb]

let's cut a long story short.....

FACT: Pacquiao did not win a FW title by beating Barrera

and, you simply cannot award Pac an imaginary title at 126 because

1) he did not beat Marquez
2) he did not beat Morales, who beat him at 130 less than a year later

stop telling cool stories bro

you are making yourself look ******

Pac is a helluva fighter, and nobody said otherwise, get a grip !!

For the last time I didn't award pacquiao anything.he was the lineal featherweight champion
Marquez did not beat him either yet u designate Marquez "the man"
Morales did not beat pacquiao either and pacquiao KO'd morales at 130

What cool stories?
Certainly not making myself look ******. I've given fact after fact after fact. I'm using boxing records, who the fighters fought.
U are flip flopping. Comparing the ring to playboy, then using their rankings to further your claim that Marquez was number 1. But it never dawned on you why pacquiao wasn't in the top ten.!!!!!!
I'll be waiting for that website where you got those rankings. Looking forward to it.
I have never said that every lineal champion was the best fighter in their division but if they are not, they won't last long. History and lineage and tradition is important especially in this era of alphabets and money grabbing skulduggery.
Just look at sulamain and that "belt" for the mayweather mcgregor. Yet you seem to give more credence to sulamain and his crooked pals rather than the man who beat the man who beat the man.
There will always be misses in boxing. A fight that didn't happen. But I am absolutely convinced that lineage is the way to go. Its not perfect. Stevenson has been fighting bums. Canelo waiting out GGG etc. Politics, promoters won't work with each other.
Anyway, I think we've said all there is to say. We'll just be repeating ourselves.

My last post might be hard to read. I'm not up to speed with highlighting quotes and all that jazz

[aboutfkntime]

For the last time I didn't award pacquiao anything.he was the lineal featherweight champion
Marquez did not beat him either yet u designate Marquez "the man"
Morales did not beat pacquiao either and pacquiao KO'd morales at 130

What cool stories?
Certainly not making myself look ******. I've given fact after fact after fact. I'm using boxing records, who the fighters fought.
U are flip flopping. Comparing the ring to playboy, then using their rankings to further your claim that Marquez was number 1. But it never dawned on you why pacquiao wasn't in the top ten.!!!!!!
I'll be waiting for that website where you got those rankings. Looking forward to it.
I have never said that every lineal champion was the best fighter in their division but if they are not, they won't last long. History and lineage and tradition is important especially in this era of alphabets and money grabbing skulduggery.
Just look at sulamain and that "belt" for the mayweather mcgregor. Yet you seem to give more credence to sulamain and his crooked pals rather than the man who beat the man who beat the man.
There will always be misses in boxing. A fight that didn't happen. But I am absolutely convinced that lineage is the way to go. Its not perfect. Stevenson has been fighting bums. Canelo waiting out GGG etc. Politics, promoters won't work with each other.
Anyway, I think we've said all there is to say. We'll just be repeating ourselves.

My last post might be hard to read. I'm not up to speed with highlighting quotes and all that jazz

YOU claimed that lineage proved who the best fighter was

remember this rubbish.....

Ipso facto pacquiao becomes champ

but, at 126.....

FACT: Pacquiao did not win a world title

FACT: Pacquiao could not even beat Marquez

FACT: Pacquiao did not beat Morales, who beat him less than a year later at 130

lineage doesn't mean shht to anyone except for the silly casuals

and yet, you used lineage to justify handing around world titles

it is disgraceful the way you fanboys lower the standards within boxing to benefit your favorite fighters..... ****ting all over the sport of boxing in the process