Valdez v Golovkin?

Stop writing this. It's embarrassing even for you.

 

He was not.

He was a lightweight up until he was 22.

He spent ten ****ing years boxing as middleweight you stupid, stupid man.

He doesn't even look blown up!!

http://myboxingfans.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/valdez.jpg

http://cache4.asset-cache.net/gc/15...BXwXzgi7VRBJLfjh72aRR9pk4JzK450BVnTlNGPBoKA==

Neither cut nor overweight he looks absolutely normal for a middleweight. He has a short reach for a MW, that's it. He looks about the same size with the same weight distribution as Bennie Briscoe:

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/AoRKOao3H9c/hqdefault.jpg

And, by the way, insisting that "a blown up lightweight" decked Briscoe must number among the most stupid things you've ever said on this forum, which is really saying something.


I pick Golovkin but that in no way contradicts the incredible extent of your enormous stupidity.

 

Up UNTIL he was 22 WHEN he was 22 he CEASED TO BE A ****ING LIGHTWIEGHT ASHLIDFOIAHGO[IAHRGOH[ADFGHDDDDDD

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYXG9rG0Jf0

 

I'm always honest with my picks. There is no reason, ever, to be dishonest, unless you are driven by some weird sense of racial dementia that demands you continual erode the standing of every fighter outside of the ones you admire, for whatever reason.

I recognise that FACT in my last post to you, that FACT is fully reflected in my post:

But despite this post fully describing the FACTS and despite the FACT that any normal human being would see that the FACTS are fully reflected in that post, we get this:

And then this:

Louis DID beat Walcott. That's a FACT too, one you appear to be wilfully denying? But anyway, no, I didn't say that the notion of Louis defeating Walcott was wrong, i've just presented the counterargument for those that name it clear robbery which is very clear. No idea why you are trying to talk about that here though.

Yeah, I know. You've told me this a dozen times. It has nothing to do with this thread. And I don't care anyway. So do me, and yourself a favour and STFU about it.

Sam Langford was a middleweight at 22 and a rock solid heavy later in his career.

Juan Manuel Marquez was a feather at 22 and was a solid lightweight later in his career.

Bob Fitzsimmons was a welterweight at 22 and a rock solid light-heavyweight later in his career.


FACTS.

 

Yeah, he was a natural middle with a short reach.

Like Marciano was a natural heavy/cruiser with a short reach.

Tyson had short reach for a heavyweight.

Hatton had a short reach for a welterweight.

David Tua has a short reach.

They were all fine at their weights. Their short reach doesn't make them "blown up".

You're a ****ing crazy man. Is that literally all your evidence?

No. But he was a natural middle for his era, and in absolutely no sense of the word was he a lightweight and nor, based upon ACTUALLY images of him, would he have been able to make, aged 32, the lightweight limit under modern conditions.

Honestly. WTF.

 

I don't know the answer to the question "when was the last time a ranked middleweight had a 69" reach" and the only way to find the answer is to look at dozens of boxrec records until i find one, which sounds like no fun at all.

If you're "having fun" at the board's expense that is a perfect definition of trolling.