The "All Things Mayweather/Pacquiao" Express!!!!!!

Wow , you just proved that you know absolutely nothing about boxing ... You're obviously Just a bias fanboy. Even most of the die hard *****s would probably disagree with you here .

 

Can you back up your claim that not felt clottey won?

Spinks lost to larry, he wasn't the man.

Briggs never ever was the man. If you wanna think that briggs v foreman was a more important fight than holyfield v tyson then I seriously suggest you research into the times.

 

When floyd retired cotto was the default number 1.

Santos was the number 1 lmw before losing clearly to foreman who lost by stoppage to cotto. This results in cotto being the current number 1 lmw.

So that's two divisions he's been number 1. Bald has only been top in 1 and that was contentious seeing as many rated margo above him.

 

How did you score the fight?

 

Cotto *never* beat the #1 guy @ 140, 147 or 154.

Never.

And GTFOOH with that Foreman Santos business.

I'd like to see some credible ratings with Santos in the #1 spot...

 

The judges gave Spinks and Briggs the decision.

You can't argue with that.

Spinks was the Man and so was Briggs.

These are the FACTS. Learn to live with them.

 

Maybe you would like to point out the flaw in my logic?

I'm listening...

 

What exactly do you fighters fight for, if you are of the opinion that being the undisputed lineal champion means nothing? It does mean something, simply because you don't like the fighter doesn't mean the title means nothing...these people that say the titles mean nothing are quick to point out Manny is an 8 division champion, etc. Baldomir was the lineal champion and legit champion of his division, period.

 

Ofcourse you can argue with that. Boxing is a subjective sport.

What is not subjective is that briggs was never the top hw in the world. Spinks beat larry in the first fight so that's different.

 

Cotto *was* the number 1 guy at 147 till margo battered him.

Cotto *is* the number 1 guy at 154 today.

 

it's not that it means nothing, it's more that it doesn't mean everything. a fighter fights to prove they are the best, usually that is done by cleaning out a division.

manny isn't an 8 weight champion. it's fair to say he;s the best from fly to welter, but 154 means nothing in his legacy.

 

your flaw is simple. you think ortiz has never fought at WW and you think briggs-foreman was more of a championship fight than tyson-holyfield.

 

[url]http://philboxing.com/news/story-35183.html[/url]

 

I never said anything about Ortiz not fighting @ WW.

Tyson Holyfield was NOT a contest for the legitimate HW title. Foreman Briggs, OTOH, WAS...

 

Rep...being a lineal champ doesn't necessarily carry more weight then being any other champ of the division. I think that's what he was commenting on. No one says he wasn't a legit champ, but Baldomir WAS the weakest ever WW cha,mp, and when he had the belts, would be an underdog vs. most in the top ten at the time. Being lineal didn't automatically make him better.

And BTW, "THESE PEOPLE" you speak of, who you think says titles mean ntohing but point to Pac's title...who says that? That generalization that so many use is a pointless attempt to make a point. If it's the same, call them out. :deal