Can someone explain to me why Timothy Bradley is in the p4p top 10??!

oh right, so you ducked my questions for a 7th time and in response i got trolling responses and emoticons.

remember the other day, when a quality poster like jack left your thread because you refused to debate without acting like a complete child? well today you have shown yourself to be that again by refusing to answer a series of questions 7 times in your own thread, instead, responding with trolling answers and emoticons to try and take attention away from your own inadequacies.

we discussed the other day why posters like realsoulja are the real deal on here and why posters like you get no respect at all, you have further emphasised why today.

 

Dont try and brand others with vile racism :-(, thats a terrible, shameful thing to do :dead

 

Sorry Popkins but your argument loses credence here. Having Dawson at #3 at any point in his career is more criminal than having Bradley at #10 now.

Dawson (like Bradley) has never fought a guy ranked in the top 25 P4P when he beat them. He struggled with Johnson and lost to Pascal who has been shown to be quite beatable. Witter, Holt, Peterson were all pretty highly rated in a decent 140 division when he beat them.

He wouldn't make my top 10 but it's nowhere near as bad as having Dawson at #3 at any point.

Sorry.

On a side note, how Cotto has fallen out of top 10 contention is beyond me!!!

 

You're basically saying you put dawson top 3 because you think he's talented. If so, why can it be wrong to rank Bradley top 10 on the same thesis?? Or how would you react if Gamboa were ranked at number 3 by someone for being talented?? Or Amir Khan?? It's contradictory.

These lists are subjective.

 

I rate both those wins...but do they qualify him for number 3 given that he struggled with Johnson and lost to Pascal?? Of course not.

No one has beaten Hasagewa like Montiel did but it doesn't make him number 3. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying it's a little hypocritial to say having Bradley in the top 10 is silly whilst also trying to defend Dawson at number 3.

 

Thats up to you.
I was browsing this thread, thinking you might have been saying something honest, only to read a vile accusation on your part. Two wrongs dont make a right and you were very wrong to do that :-(

 

I did, and although I'd never of had him that high I'm not saying having Dawson at #3 was wrong.

What I am saying is that your opening post comments upon how talented Bradley is, but dismisses him from being in the top 10 based on resume. Surely you can see that's contradictory given that you had Dawson at #3!?!?!