What's with the notion that we should root for Floyd just because he's a boxer?

[original zero]

I don't think one is "real fighting", and the other is, "half fighting". They both have their strengths and weaknesses, and yes, they BOTH have limitations, and potential that neither has. And they both have similarities.

True, without eye gouging, groin strikes, etc, MMA is not truly real fighting, but it's much much closer than boxing. Boxing is the sport of punching and not being punched. It's nowhere near as close as MMA is to being a full fight.

[original zero]

Ummm actually I gave you 2 names to your hypothetical scenario. You decided to use triangle theories as rationale to counter my argument.

you don't think you look like a ****ing idiot when you claim amir khan, who lost FOUR TIMES during that eight year span, with three of the losses at 135 & 140, would have gone undefeated through all of those top welters and super welters?

[Chollo Vista]

you don't think you look like a ****ing idiot when you claim amir khan, who lost FOUR TIMES during that eight year span, with three of the losses at 135 & 140, would have gone undefeated through all of those top welters and super welters?

You just changed the goal post again. First you say we can only include a certain criteria for Floyd. How many times did Ortiz, Mosley, DLH, Guerrero and Maidana lose over that same 8 year period?

And why are you purposely leaving out Marquez as if I haven't mentioned his name to you at least 4 times?

Lastly, triangle theories don't count. Why do you keep using triangle theories?

[Chollo Vista]

you don't think you look like a ****ing idiot when you claim amir khan, who lost FOUR TIMES during that eight year span, with three of the losses at 135 & 140, would have gone undefeated through all of those top welters and super welters?

Oh and during that same time period, was Pac ever KOd by a135 and 140 fighter or no?

[original zero]

You just changed the goal post again. First you say we can only include a certain criteria for Floyd.

False. Didn't change anything. No other welterweight would have gone undefeated through that 8 year stretch fighting who Floyd fought when he fought them (which obviously means them weighing what they weighed).

And why are you purposely leaving out Marquez as if I haven't mentioned his name to you at least 4 times?

Because he lost four times during that stretch and no reasonable person would believe he would have won multiple championships at 154. Both of your suggestions were ludicrous.

Lastly, triangle theories don't count. Why do you keep using triangle theories?

I'm not using triangle theory. Triangle theory = A beat B, B beat C, therefore A would beat C, which we know isn't always true because styles make fights.

But when Amir Khan loses four times, mostly at lower weights, it's not triangle theory to point out he wouldn't have gone undefeated against better, bigger and badder opponents.

If I point out that Kovalev wouldn't beat Anthony Joshua, that's not triangle theory, that's common sense.

[Chollo Vista]

No other welterweight would have gone undefeated through that 8 year stretch fighting who Floyd fought when he fought them.

Prove it. Don't just say it, prove it.

Do you know the difference between opinion and and fact or no?

As a grown man, how do you not know the difference between hypothetically speaking and fact?

Also, was Floyd the only one to fight that list of fighters? Yes or no?

Damn you're going full ****** right now... 3 days of full ******