Anyone Here Favor Cotto or Canelo Over Lemieux (lem•ee•ux)...???

Golovkin ko's Canelo how is this even a question. GGG almost did it in two rounds of sparring. Golovkin would obliterate Canelo in under 4. I'd say 6 but GGG would be looking to put on a show.

 

Ur obsessed with GGG. He is all u talk about

 

That's not how odds work. People bet on who they think is going to win.GGG will be favored over anyone at 160

 

I disagree.He has beat good fighters,just not any big names. I think Martin Murray is very good and he should've been the undefeated lineal champ going into that fight.He was robbed vs Martinez and Sturm. I'd put money on him beating Cotto or Canelo. GGG will slaughter the winner of Canelo/Cotto and then people will **** on him fighting a smaller guy when in reality Canelo is the same size as him

 

Yeah Canelo should absolutely be at MW.

 

Who's Triple G? I was speaking of Little G..:yep...

 

I favor Canelo over Lemieux.

 

Canelo would be interesting and close.

Cotto would get destroyed.

 

I'd pick both Canelo and Cotto right now to beat Lemeiux. He matches up poorly stylistically especially with Canelo. He'd have a better shot against Cotto.

Lemieux has fought one world class fighter ever in Ndam. That's it. Next best couple guys he fought beat him a couple years back... He's being super hyped right now. I wonder why?

 

Same reason you was super hyping Devon Alexander's son Maidana before Mayweather?

Who best win was Broner lol or Ortiz lol and for the record N'Dam >>>>>>>> those two hype jobs.

 

He very well may be but his in-ring accomplishments do not indicate such.

And you're incorrect. I was super hyping Maidana before the Broner match, not the Mayweather fight. I was one of few that predicted Maidana to defeat him going into the fight when most were claiming "future superstar vs. faded brute club fighter."

They were wrong. And, well, I remember you picking Broner to beat Maidana too, so, hey, what do I know?

As for Maidana vs. Mayweather, I distinctly remember a thread/poll where the mass consensus and saying going into that fight was "Mayweather 120-108" and I guaranteed that Maidana would win at least 3 rounds, which everyone agrees on now only with retrospect.

But at the time, hey, I was the guy everyone called an idiot and people claimed were "super hyping" him because I was the only guy who thought he would win more than 2 rounds, so once again, what do I know?

 

I picked Broner to win via robbery and still strongly believe that was the plan if Broner saw the final bell going into the fight but was changed at the 11th hour (why did it take 10 mins to read the scorecard and Broner storm out like it was a disgrace) but the crowd reaction made them no they wasn't getting away with that 5hit.

And no, I vivdly remember you saying Khan's resume, which included Maidana is terrible.

 

Blitzes Cotto & loses to Canelo IMO

 

Cute story. You did predict Broner to win by robbery. Just like I stated; you predicted Broner to win. I predicted Broner to beat Porter by the same shady means. But I was wrong. Regardless of the explanation of my prediction, my prediction was wrong. That's all I've said about yours.

I've never said Khan's resume is terrible. He's fought many fighters that I really like and respect (Paulie by shutout TKO, Kotelnik handily, Maidana by 1 point).

"Terrible" RELATIVE TO hype and discussion of certain threads or forums entirely, absolutely.

But I've also reinforced Khan's notable victories in threads that were completely deucing on him pretending he never faced a top 10 opponent when he has faced and beaten several.

And if you look which I'm sure you have because you've spent hours of your life by now researching my posts, you will always see me express my opinion that I scored the Khan vs. Peterson fight in favor of Khan by 2 points.

Trying to show my inconsistencies usually only shows you're being a bitter creepo stalker since I know you're incorrect and can provide proof of such. Or when you do think you have something that will rile me up, it is a statement which you connect dots to a non-associated topic of which it is not accurate to make such a random or indirect assumption from. You've got to try harder than that, Hans.

 

This