Come over here now!!! Why are people comparing Margarito's Perfomace against Williams

Lots of good and even elite fighters have lost to guys they shouldn't have lost to in hindsight. That is no indication of good or bad.

A bad fighter would never be a 2 time champion. Lightning may strike once, but twice? Highly unlikely.

 

I always said this about Williams, the people who thought he could win more than 4 rounds against Floyd or even last 12 against Cotto are delusional.

Its definatly an indicator, its not perfect, but if you lose to a fighter you shouldn't, it says at least something about you. I never implied Margarito is a bad fighter, or even that Williams is a bad fighter. Just that if you lose to Williams, you certainly lose some credibility saying you can beat Cotto.

 

So because Manny Pacquiao was stopped early in his career he should have never become great?

Or how about Lennox Lewis getting knocked out by Oliver McCall, a heavyweight who had only ever won a vacant title. Should Lewis have made it as far as he did?

Or how about Waldo getting knocked out by journeyman Corrie Sanders. Or a string of losses he's had before and since. Is that any indication of him being a bad fighter?

This list could go on of course but I've made my point. Circumstances surrounding a loss are very important. Losing to Santos because the guy is endlessly headbutting you is not any indication that you suck. And losing to Paul Williams if you are Tony Margarito is no indication that you suck. It just means that Santos is dirty and had hometown favoritism. And Paul Williams has one hell of a chin. Margarito isn't a boxer like Q, he is a brawler. So there is a distinction there that Paul will be a harder fight for Margarito than he would Q. It doesn't necessarily mean Q is better than Margarito.

 

Can you not read?

I said it is one indicator, as in one of many, and that it is not a perfect one.

I also never ****ing said he sucks, I said he should be able to beat Williams. Do you agree or disagree that he should be able to beat Williams? Do you disagree one bit?

 

You make it sound as though Margarito has no claim to beating Cotto. So yes, I can read. And I can see exactly what you are trying to pass off here.

Three names for you. Ali, Fraizer, Foreman. A does not always beat C. Therefore to draw any conclusion from this Cotto-Margarito showdown by looking at the Williams fight is a flawed method of prediction.

 

To pretend AM has no chance is just plain stupid, no two ways about it.

I think Cotto has more tools and is the obvious favorite but AM has more than a slight chance here.

 

I am saying I don't think he will win, the Williams fight is part of that reason. Had the fight never taken place, I would still think that, but it does reinforce my belief.

There is a ****ing middle ground, a thing can be evidence of something without being 100% proof, I am saying it is not a good sign, not that is a steel trap truth, learn the ****ing difference.

 

What seems more likely here? That Margarito defied odds by becoming a 2 time welter champion, despite being inferior (in whatever way you put it). Or that styles make fights and that Paul Williams, with his height, reach, and durability were just too much for Margarito's crude puncher style to overcome?

Obviously the latter makes more sense.

I'm not trying to convince you btw. I'm just saying it doesn't make much sense to try and use the Williams fight as an indication of what will happen here. Lujan is 100x closer to what Cotto is than Williams. Williams is nothing like Cotto.