Do you think Miguel Cotto is underrated?

[GrandpaBernard]

If Cotto has the athleticism of Floyd or manny, I think he would have been great

[ThunderFists]

The Pac/Floyd era wasn't even a particularly strong one by historical 140-147 standards. So what era would he have been one of the definitive best?

I don't think you understand what i wrote. Let me simplify it for you. Had cotto fought in a era where pac and floyd werent fighting he would have stood out more

[The D3vil]

He's a Hall of Famer, but yet another guy who would be a lot more respected had he just chilled at 140, unified and dominated his division as opposed to flying through weight classes, picking up ABC belts

[Larry the boss]

hall of famer for sure

[calemanregreso]

i didnt like how cotto bullies his best friend

[aboutfkntime]

we have recently had this conversation regarding two other fighters

Broner, and Golovkin

like Broner and Golovkin... Cotto is a HOF'er, but not a ATG

interestingly, some posters do not seem to know the difference... I am currently embroiled in this debate on the other thread

Cotto is obviously better than Broner and Golovkin, but not a ATG

the difference is... with the HOF, you are compared to a standard... a standard that is high, but not towering, and it seems to change over time... including paper achievements

with a ATG... you are compared to your peers based on wins, nothing else

there will eventually be HUNDREDS of hof'ers, but only dozens of genuine greats... and the list of genuine greats will become more refined over time, not widened over time like with the HOF

[BLASTER1]

we have recently had this conversation regarding two other fighters

Broner, and Golovkin

like Broner and Golovkin... Cotto is a HOF'er, but not a ATG

interestingly, some posters do not seem to know the difference... I am currently embroiled in this debate on the other thread

Cotto is obviously better than Broner and Golovkin, but not a ATG

the difference is... with the HOF, you are compared to a standard... a standard that is high, but not towering, and it seems to change over time... including paper achievements

with a ATG... you are compared to your peers based on wins, nothing else

there will eventually be HUNDREDS of hof'ers, but only dozens of genuine greats... and the list of genuine greats will become more refined over time, not widened over time like with the HOF

Been reading a few of your posts and i cant even believe its you.
Im glad i took you of my ignore list today, considering your bringing something to the table not just ragging on GGG.
Good for you bro.

[aboutfkntime]

Been reading a few of your posts and i cant even believe its you.
Im glad i took you of my ignore list today, considering your bringing something to the table not just ragging on GGG.
Good for you bro.

yea I got side-tracked

[BLASTER1]

yea I got side-tracked

Bro you should feel special, you my friend are the only dude ive ever had to put on ignore in the 3 yrs since ive been here.

[Earl-Hickey]

You can't be an ATG when you lost against all your best opponents.

His best win by FAR is a Mosley who was past prime but still pretty good.

That'd a good win, and he has some pretty good wins after that but there's no excellent or great wins on his record, he's got names with massive asterisk next to them like a FINISHED martinez and FINISHED margarito

He had chances to beat the best but he lost them all so its not difficult to rate him. "is he an ATG.... Isn't he....?". No, he's DEFINATLEY not.

He's Hall of Fame, very good fighter, massive popularity but he wasn't one of the greats, no way.