Tim Bradley has a better resume than Ward, Calzaghe, Canelo,Cotto, and many others..

[xvG-MONEYvx]

Lay off of whatever your smoking.

[Mr.Fantastic]

Lay off of whatever your smoking.

Since most of you don't have jack shit to counter, y'all just talk shit.

[IronDanHamza]

I can compare, it was losses that should of gone the other way but didn't. Ward shouldn't have won vs Kovalev the first time. Majority of people thought Kovalev beat Ward.

You're exaggerating with 1%, many more than 1% thought Bradley beat Pac. Go look at some of the threads here for starters from that time. It was way more than 1%, even excluding the trolls.



That's not true, there was more than an extremely small percentage. So you agree that Floyd lost to Castillo the first time? Public opinion thought he lost.
What about Kovalev vs Ward the first time? Same deal with public opinion.

Like I stated before, Oscar should've won vs Tito and Mosley but in the end, the losses are still there in his record. Talk boxing with Tito and Mosley fans, they will put the Oscar win as one of the biggest on their records. Sucks but it's done.



You're exaggerating again. As a Bradley fan, I saw some that did count it. I can go look for it but it's time consuming so you're going to have to take my word for it.




I thought many have lost in fights that may of gone the other way. You guys still keep trying to dog on Bradley's resume while not having the same standards for the others. Cotto may of fought Mosley, Margarito, and Mayweather but he still lost to two and there are people that thought he lost to Mosley. You guys just want to have your cake and eat it too by just discrediting Bradley and not the other guys. Have the same standards all around. Take away Pac from Bradley, you take away Mosley from Cotto, Kovalev from Ward, and so on. We're just going to go around in circles.

WARD DID NOT CLEAN OUT A WHOLE DIVISION. Jesus that's one of the biggest piles of bullshit in boxing. Did Ward beat Bute? No! Did Ward beat Dirrell? No! He could've but both of them chose to not fight each other. You're saying Bradley lost to Pac in a bull**** decision but don't include Ward with Kovalev on the first fight. Like I said, you're going back to only an unfair standard.

Bradley won more rounds in one fight vs Pac than Margarito and Cotto combined when they fought him. He may not be special but he was above the majority of boxers. Ward didn't fight Dawson nor Abraham at their best but I still count his wins over them.

Bradley has a better resume than all the guys I mentioned based on wins on his records. Records are facts.

Bradley accomplished more and will accomplish more than the current stock of WWs. Most boxers these days only want to get paid for tune ups. That's why I don't see it. Maybe Crawford and Spence have a chance.

FYI Ward wasn't undisputed in any of his weights. Fantasy fights aren't a metric to gauge for a boxer's greatness.




Devon was pretty high. Yet again, the reason why it took a hit was because Bradley outclassed him and Devon went out like a chump.



Yet again I see the same thing. Talking about controversial but forget Ward had one, Calzaghe had another, Canelo did too, and even Cotto.

I'm not counting losses, I'm counting wins. None of those have better wins on the A side like Pac/Marquez and some are comparable to Bradley's B side wins like Alexander and Peterson.

Literally not exaggerating. Literally 1 member of the media had Bradley winning.

Can't put a number on the fans on this board but itnwas definitely extremely small %.

None of those fights are even close to that. Especially the likes of Floyd Castillo and Cotto Mosley which were 50-50 in the media.

Even slightly more comparable ones like Ward-Kovalev, even those over 20% of the media didn't have Kovlaev winning.

Literally all but one person had Pacquaio winning.

It's not comparable at all you are comparing mostly close fights to one of the clearest robberies ever.

Like I said if you want to play dumb that's fine but don't expect others to.

[JK1700]

I thought many have lost in fights that may of gone the other way. You guys still keep trying to dog on Bradley's resume while not having the same standards for the others. Cotto may of fought Mosley, Margarito, and Mayweather but he still lost to two and there are people that thought he lost to Mosley. You guys just want to have your cake and eat it too by just discrediting Bradley and not the other guys. Have the same standards all around. Take away Pac from Bradley, you take away Mosley from Cotto, Kovalev from Ward, and so on. We're just going to go around in circles.

WARD DID NOT CLEAN OUT A WHOLE DIVISION. Jesus that's one of the biggest piles of bullshit in boxing. Did Ward beat Bute? No! Did Ward beat Dirrell? No! He could've but both of them chose to not fight each other. You're saying Bradley lost to Pac in a bull**** decision but don't include Ward with Kovalev on the first fight. Like I said, you're going back to only an unfair standard.

Bradley won more rounds in one fight vs Pac than Margarito and Cotto combined when they fought him. He may not be special but he was above the majority of boxers. Ward didn't fight Dawson nor Abraham at their best but I still count his wins over them.

Bradley has a better resume than all the guys I mentioned based on wins on his records. Records are facts.

FYI Ward wasn't undisputed in any of his weights. Fantasy fights aren't a metric to gauge for a boxer's greatness.

Yet again I see the same thing. Talking about controversial but forget Ward had one, Calzaghe had another, Canelo did too, and even Cotto.

It's totally the same standard, of course everyone has had close fights you're stating the obvious but there's a difference between a close fight that could go either way and a total robbery. Pacquiao-Bradley had more outcry than almost any fight I can remember, there's really close fights and then there's robberies. That's why he doesn't get the credit for it. You can argue Kovalev beat Ward or Castillo beat Mayweather or Cotto lost to Mosley and millions of other ones but everyone agrees they were super-close fights so even if you had one guy winning you still have to give him credit because you can see it either way. I didn't see one person claim Bradley won the fight. Even the guys who don't like Pacquiao had him winning clearly. He made it a tough fight but it's still a clear loss to me.

Ward fought the best guys in his division, Bute? If he beat Froch he would've got the fight. He lost so that killed his momentum and he didn't get it. Dirrell? I'm not upset I didn't see that fight. Can't make a guy fight you that doesn't want to, they are friends so it's understandable they wouldn't want to fight. Ward just fought more top guys and won most of his fights clearly as apposed to them being controversial this is why I give him the edge. The first Kovalev fight was controversial then he beat him in the rematch. Whether you like it or not he was widely regarded #1 at 168 and 175 and was also p4p#2 for a long time and then p4p#1. Look I get it you're a Bradley fan and he does deserve respect but to say he's had a better career than all those guys is too much. When it's all said and done it's highly likely most/all of those guys will be rated higher than him.

From a talent standpoint i'd have to rank most of those guys above him as well. I always thought he got by more on his grit and determination. Certainly if we're talking Ward and Cotto I think both of those guys were more skilled than him especially Ward. If you want to rank him above those guys that's fine but as you can see not many others will agree. Nobody's hating on him that's just their opinion. Just like it's your opinion his career was better. But just because you have a "win" on your resume doesn't mean we need to give you full credit. It would be liking giving Jose Luis Ramirez credit for beating Pernell Whitaker in a fight where he lost nearly every round but got the W.

I give him credit but I thought Pacquiao beat him all 3 times, also had Marquez beating him close and I gave him the Provodnikov fight but I couldn't help but think a great fighter wouldn't have struggled as badly as that. To me he comes under the "very good" category not quite "great". Now if he'd stuck around a couple more years and cleaned out the WW division i'd give him that but he didn't fight any of those guys. It would've been cool to see him fight any 1 of Porter, Thurman, Garcia, Spence. He decided not to which is his decision but how I am gonna give him more credit than Cotto when he's fought half as many top guys for 8 years vs 13 years? Cotto's had like 20 title fights whether you like him or not you gotta respect that. It's impressive to see a guy do that across 4 weight divisions.

[Kigali]

It's totally the same standard, of course everyone has had close fights you're stating the obvious but there's a difference between a close fight that could go either way and a total robbery. Pacquiao-Bradley had more outcry than almost any fight I can remember, there's really close fights and then there's robberies. That's why he doesn't get the credit for it. You can argue Kovalev beat Ward or Castillo beat Mayweather or Cotto lost to Mosley and millions of other ones but everyone agrees they were super-close fights so even if you had one guy winning you still have to give him credit because you can see it either way. I didn't see one person claim Bradley won the fight. Even the guys who don't like Pacquiao had him winning clearly. He made it a tough fight but it's still a clear loss to me.

Ward fought the best guys in his division, Bute? If he beat Froch he would've got the fight. He lost so that killed his momentum and he didn't get it. Dirrell? I'm not upset I didn't see that fight. Can't make a guy fight you that doesn't want to, they are friends so it's understandable they wouldn't want to fight. Ward just fought more top guys and won most of his fights clearly as apposed to them being controversial this is why I give him the edge. The first Kovalev fight was controversial then he beat him in the rematch. Whether you like it or not he was widely regarded #1 at 168 and 175 and was also p4p#2 for a long time and then p4p#1. Look I get it you're a Bradley fan and he does deserve respect but to say he's had a better career than all those guys is too much. When it's all said and done all of those guys will be rated higher than him.

From a talent standpoint i'd have to rank most of those guys above him as well. I always thought he got by more on his grit and determination. Certainly if we're talking Ward and Cotto I think both of those guys were more skilled than him especially Ward. If you want to rank him above those guys that's fine but as you can see not many others will agree. Nobody's hating on him that's just their opinion. Just like it's your opinion his career was better. But just because you have a "win" on your resume doesn't mean we need to give you full credit. It would be liking giving Jose Luis Ramirez credit for beating Pernell Whitaker in a fight where he lost nearly every round but got the W.

I give him credit but I thought Pacquiao beat him all 3 times, also had Marquez beating him close and I gave him the Provodnikov fight but I couldn't help but think a great fighter wouldn't have struggled as badly as that. To me he comes under the "very good" category not quite "great". Now if he'd stuck around a couple more years and cleaned out the WW division i'd give him that but he didn't fight any of those guys. It would've been cool to see him fight any 1 of Porter, Thurman, Garcia, Spence. He decided not to which is his decision but how I am gonna give him more credit than Cotto when he's half as many top guys for 8 years vs 13 years? Cotto's had like 20 title fights whether you like him or not you gotta respect that. It's impressive to see a guy do that across 4 weight divisions.

[IronDanHamza]

Talk about double standards. People don't want to count Bradley's win over Pac but yet they want to count Ward's win over Kovalev, Canelo's draw vs GGG, and Cotto's win over Mosley.

That's because the only way they can have an argument. The records are facts.

Again just stupid logic.

Cotto-Mosley? Really? You are really comparing that to Pacquaio-Bradley.

There are some real legitmate robberies out there where only a fool wouldn't consider.

Williams-Lara
Whitaker-Ramirez
Santa Cruz-Casamayor
Pacquaio-Bradley

Where literally none of the media had the "winner" winning.

Not the case for the other fights you are comparing it to.

[Redd Foxx]

Can you explain why please? I know you're offended cause I put Ward. Please explain how Ward has better wins than Bradley?

I don't have much time today but you've been cool to me so I'll give you a reply. I do agree with you that Bradley is underrated, doesn't get near enough respect. But I think you went over the top with the thread concept and you probably know that.

Pac; Dishonest to even include this. Beyond the obvious fact that he didn't win it, May fans trolling Pac fans over it doesn't validate anything.

Marquez; Wasn't this shortly before his retirement? I think he was 40. Take Pac off his resume (who he only beat clearly once in 4 fights) and what has Marquez done?

Witter? Such a reach to even include him.

Alexander; I like Devon, I believed in him. But, he went nowhere. Got schooled by Khan and had his ass beat by Aaron freakin Martinez. For all the promise he had at the time of the Bradley fight, he turned out not to be that great overall. Unfortunately.

Peterson; This was like 8 years ago and Peterson had beaten no one at the time. In fact, he never went on to do much afterward. I think he had a draw with Victor Ortiz shortly after this fight.

I don't have enough time right now to list the resumes of the 4 other fighters (I am working and just took a 10min break to do this) but I wanted to at least give you my thoughts about Timmy's resume. If I get time to explain why the others are comparable or better, I will.

[Larry the boss]

lol................

[IronDanHamza]

It's totally the same standard, of course everyone has had close fights you're stating the obvious but there's a difference between a close fight that could go either way and a total robbery. Pacquiao-Bradley had more outcry than almost any fight I can remember, there's really close fights and then there's robberies. That's why he doesn't get the credit for it. You can argue Kovalev beat Ward or Castillo beat Mayweather or Cotto lost to Mosley and millions of other ones but everyone agrees they were super-close fights so even if you had one guy winning you still have to give him credit because you can see it either way. I didn't see one person claim Bradley won the fight. Even the guys who don't like Pacquiao had him winning clearly. He made it a tough fight but it's still a clear loss to me.

Ward fought the best guys in his division, Bute? If he beat Froch he would've got the fight. He lost so that killed his momentum and he didn't get it. Dirrell? I'm not upset I didn't see that fight. Can't make a guy fight you that doesn't want to, they are friends so it's understandable they wouldn't want to fight. Ward just fought more top guys and won most of his fights clearly as apposed to them being controversial this is why I give him the edge. The first Kovalev fight was controversial then he beat him in the rematch. Whether you like it or not he was widely regarded #1 at 168 and 175 and was also p4p#2 for a long time and then p4p#1. Look I get it you're a Bradley fan and he does deserve respect but to say he's had a better career than all those guys is too much. When it's all said and done it's highly likely most/all of those guys will be rated higher than him.

From a talent standpoint i'd have to rank most of those guys above him as well. I always thought he got by more on his grit and determination. Certainly if we're talking Ward and Cotto I think both of those guys were more skilled than him especially Ward. If you want to rank him above those guys that's fine but as you can see not many others will agree. Nobody's hating on him that's just their opinion. Just like it's your opinion his career was better. But just because you have a "win" on your resume doesn't mean we need to give you full credit. It would be liking giving Jose Luis Ramirez credit for beating Pernell Whitaker in a fight where he lost nearly every round but got the W.

I give him credit but I thought Pacquiao beat him all 3 times, also had Marquez beating him close and I gave him the Provodnikov fight but I couldn't help but think a great fighter wouldn't have struggled as badly as that. To me he comes under the "very good" category not quite "great". Now if he'd stuck around a couple more years and cleaned out the WW division i'd give him that but he didn't fight any of those guys. It would've been cool to see him fight any 1 of Porter, Thurman, Garcia, Spence. He decided not to which is his decision but how I am gonna give him more credit than Cotto when he's fought half as many top guys for 8 years vs 13 years? Cotto's had like 20 title fights whether you like him or not you gotta respect that. It's impressive to see a guy do that across 4 weight divisions.

Ward and Dirrell were sceduled to fight anyway and Dirrell had to pull out because of injury (supposedly) and sat on the shelf for years after that.

Only guy Ward missed was Bute. Should have fought him to be honest but he let Froch do it.

[JK1700]

Ward and Dirrell were sceduled to fight anyway and Dirrell had to pull out because of injury (supposedly) and sat on the shelf for years after that.

Only guy Ward missed was Bute. Should have fought him to be honest but he let Froch do it.

It would've been cool to see the Bute fight but it was in the works before he got beat. It's like - What do you do then? Fight him coming off a loss? What's the point of that? So I don't really hold that against him. Bute should have been in the Super Six then it would have happened. Skill wise Ward is better than Bradley easily.

TS wants me to give Bradley credit for Pacquiao. Yeah I give him credit for taking the fight but he really lost all 3 fights so you really can't use that as a reason to inflate his status. Cotto's had twice as many big fights as him but we're supposed to rank Bradley higher because he did better against Pacquiao than Cotto did? That's just silly. If we're talking accomplishments you have to put Cotto higher.