Pacquiao-Cotto or Garcia-Spence: What's The Better Win (???)

i agree. but the bar set for spence need only be to remain among the top 3 fighters in his competing division, which is as high as cotto ever got. given that there are no floyd or pac level fighters to keep spence off of #1, a fair challenge would be to have him continue to rule as the best 147 lb fighter for the foreseeable future, against all comers.

 

Cotto is not an ATG. We know that. He was a very good fighter. If he was an ATG he would have beaten Pac all over the ring. Any ATG Welterweight would beat Pac as hes too small and came up from Flyweight.

But Cotto is a HOFer. Thus quite a bit more proven than Spence.

 

yes, cotto is undoubtedly more proven, and my argument rests on the assumption that spence will remain as the best welter against the likes of crawford and thurman, should thurman ever materialize. should crawford beat spence, then my argument collapses.
right now, my assessment is that when its all said and done, spence will prove to be the best welterweight bar none.

 

Ok but I dont think proving you are #1 in your division means that automatically you are great. Nor do I think you have to be #1 to be a top level fighter. Kessler and Froch for example were never the best in their division, but they are still excellent fighters.

 

no, i am comparing cottos greatness, which is to remain a top 3 talent against great competition for an extended period of time, to spences probable greatness, which is to be the best against very good competition over an extended period of time.
i think crawford is a greater fighter than cotto, yet i have spence beating crawford. how can i have a 135 lb fighter beating cotto, be more than that same 135 lb fighter beating spence?

 

I will say though that being #1 means you are the best win to be had in the division at that time. So it is a big deal. For example, Ioka KO'ing Oleydong. He dethroned the top possible opponent he could have at 105.

 

I disagree. Greatness is proven stuff.

 

i didnt disagree on that. as i sated numerous times, all this is based on the assumption that spence proves to be the best welter. if he loses, then i was wrong, if he doesnt, then my argument stands.

 

You can only beat who's in front of you. But I cant hold it against guys who happen to be in a top heavy division and just have that guy who is an absolute juggernaut.

 

Your argument makes the assumption that all you have to do is rule the division thus not taking into consideration the strength of the division.

147 is fairly good right now. But Spence has only beaten 1 notable fighter at 147 and he hasnt looked the same since he was beaten by a much larger man.

Spence can rule the division through rep, but he has to actually fight the top guys to prove that hes the best.

 

i dont know how else to explain the same thing ive been trying to explain.

 

I dont think Spence will have great competition. Garcia and Porter are B level. Thurman is good, but not great. Probably already past his prime because his activity is so low. And by the time Soence would even fight Crawford, Crawford will be in his mid 30s.

 

and this proves what?

 

You said Spence will have great competition if he beats all the other Welterweights. Which is not true because they're only 2 other top Welterweights. 1 is past his prime and inactive. The other will be old by the time he fights Spence.

 

What was the gauntlet of elite top 5 ranked names Cotto cleared out prior to '09 again?

People act like, when it fits the agenda of the moment, every fighter faces a long string of elite talent... except for when they only bash on bums!

I ain't calling you out tinman or nothing like that, you've been reasonable here. And I am among those who critique the mass overrating of Spence here (while I do think he is/will be the goods). It seems a reasonable disagreement, really. But I maybe would direct the above first question to you (once again, not in an ******* way, and not even really literally but just food for thought). There are many critiques to be made of Cotto as well if we are trying to deuce on his standing in November of 2009. I feel like if you held the same standard for Cotto then that you do for Spence/others now, while acknowledging Cotto is a HOF'er, it would sound harsher.