but it makes a difference, rite?
sure they are great, but not as great as the ones that have won titles at least at 3 different divisions.
So Pacquiao fighting Mayweather at 140 is nothing (just like Mayweather fighting De La Hoya at 154), rite?
winning titles at 3 different divisions is just a "sign" of greatness?
Honestly, Im not sure about that.
I agree 100%.
and why Hearns never looked sharp above Middleweight?
imo because Duke Mckenzie won titles at 3 different divisions.
could be but De La Hoya didnt fight that way with Whitaker and JCC
yes, because Trinidad was the one moving up in weight classes! Hopkins is the best ever cos he ko'ed out Trinidad and De La Hoya, rite?
seems to me that if he won titles at 3 different divisions (Fly, Bantam and Super Bantamweight) he was not that bad. btw, Hatton should at...
Sure, but fighting against who?
what I meant was that he won titles at 3 divisions.
A "good" fighter could very well be Duke McKenzie.
