No but anyone who knows anything would rather see Shane fight Mayweather now, coming off a big win with Nazim in his corner, than 5 years ago when he was losing fights or beating tomato cans with Jack in his corner. 11 or 12 years ago in the subject line would have been worth discussing. Your thread sucks. :hi:
So he lost to two fighters that would kill Floyd. Do you think Shane is really better now than he was back then? Richardson does not perform miracles.
Almost 5 years ago to the day Mosley UD'd David Estrada after losing 4 of his previous 5 fights. Yes, I think he is better now than he was back then. Doesn't mean he is in his prime though.
No possible way he is better at 38 than he was at 33. It doesn't work like that for fighters who rely so heavily on speed, reflexes and stamina. He lost back then because of who he fought.
Quit hanging on dude. That's a very simplistic way to look at things and boxing is not that simple. Why is Pacquiao better at 32 than he was at 27? Just let this one die and try harder next time you want to make a thread.
So why are you using this arguement like posters are saying this??? thats the whole point, you make **** up and try to force a pointless arguement on people...He's past his prime days but that doesnt make him any less of a threat.
You bitches(Floyd fans) are the only ones who won't admit Shane is old and faded, I wonder why. Yes Shane is better now than he was 5 yearsa ago, you're are 1 dumb son of a *****.
It was a guess, really. I hardly recognized him without a busted nose, a swallowen jaw and a paper belt around his waist.
It makes him a whole lot less of a threat, that's how it goes. I never accused anyone of saying he is in his prime, just insinuating it. Saying he's better now than he was 5 years ago is just stupid, you don't agree?
You're right my bad, fighters age like fine wine, how did I get that **** backwards. Mosley is better than prime right now.