Cotto The Quitter Will Bend The Knee Tonight

Cotto fans act like Margarito was hitting him without gloves.

 

Cotto might have been a warrior long time ago, but nowadays he's nothing but a ducking, opportunistic diva and fake ass paper chump who's keeping the lineal MW belt hostage.

 

If he does bend the knee, it better be in allegiance to Stannis Baratheon, the one true king.

 

Cotto will never fight GGG. If he wins this Canleo will smoke him.

 

He's not a paper champion. He beat the established MW king. He's using catchweights to defeat two top MW's in a one year span. People act like Cotto has been MW champion for 4 or 5 years without fighting contenders. Be real, guy. No surprise that everyone who heaps monumental hatred toward Cotto and other MW's are those who infinitely discuss and praise Golovkin... There are only a small handful of fighters who routinely face top challengers. So I hope you draw those same conclusions from every fighter who doesn't fight the single best challenger every single fight.

 

This is an embarrassing post from an armchair fan who has never even tried to hit a speed bag lol... lol:

 

It's possible that Cotto fought a Margarito who might've used plaster in their fight, lmao...yet you armchair says he quit.

 

The MW king who prior to fighting Cotto robbed Martin Murray and sustained an injury in which after he was visibly not the same fighter? Put down your blinkers.

Geale is a decent opponent, I've no problem with Cotto fighting him but he's fighting Geale on a catchweight which to me is farical for a "lineal" titlist, people want to make the big deal of his lineal title and if he's "the man" then he must uphold the standard that comes with being one.

 

So says the guy who routinely finds fault with Golovkin and Lomachenko under the pseudo guise of fairness all in a verbose patronizing manner.

 

I'd love for you to point out something to back up your argument but I've long moved past realistic expectations from people saying stupid **** like this.

EDIT: What have I ever said negative about Lomachenko other than "no guys, his amateur record does not count for his professional record" and "hey guys he is 3-1 so chill out on ATG featherweight talk." You must think those statements are unfair?

 

I agree he lost to Murray and wasn't the same fighter he was years before, same with every fighter ever at some point especially into their late 30's. But I don't discredit and dismiss every time an aged legend or great loses to end to their reign. That would be foolish and hypocritical by definition. Cotto can't help it that Sergio decided to fight him and risk the glory that came with it. I don't know how bad Sergio's knee was. I'm not his personal doctor. I don't rate the win as much as I would have rated it had it happened two years prior. That is obvious. I don't see how everyone can make assumptions about my opinion on all these other issues just because I say something that is true that they don't like. So they try to act like all my opinions are dramatically on board with that agenda in an attempt to belittle what I've said when that is simply not the case in the vast majority of the situations.

 

That he would not officially have the professional record for fastest start to a title(2nd fight) because Salido did not make weight.

Fortunately for you: A bigoted, crooked ref gave you your wish causing incessant gloating on your part to this very day.....



Flat out denies, obfuscates then demands a direct quote in 3. 2.. 1....

 

Good Lord! It's like debating with Jobe.atsch

 

Yeah. You know I'm going to demand a direct quote because you are saying a bunch of bullsh!t and you know it so you preemptively say that last line. Cute technique.

"gloating on your part to this very day" haha, c'mon man you're reaching hard. I literally haven't typed "Lomachenko" in months aside from responding to someones question of "who is fighting on the May 2nd undercard?" And I think I said, "Lomachenko's victory gains value" after the Russell vs. Jhonny fight. Other than that, wishful thinking on your part.

 

Further proving my points, bud.