Many people are starting to say that there isn't a size difference between Pacquiao and Cotto after all. Despite the fact that they may weigh the same, and are around the same height, Cotto began his career fighting at the weight Pacquiao made his bones. Cotto is a natural, albiet somewhat small, welterweight. Pacquiao is not. Pacquiao's weight and him fighting at these higher classes are a result of age, and of course, more opportunity at higher weights. A man who is 5'6", 140, is still bigger than a woman who is 5'6", and gained enough weight to weigh 140, because his muscles and body frame sits differently than the woman's frame. The man would still be stronger. Cotto is the bigger fighter, bottom line, simply because he is more natural at that weight.
"Noob"? Don't be an internet nerd. I may be new to ESB, but I'm not new to boxing. I could go head-to head with you any day regarding boxing trivia.
lol another thread waiting for a throll.....and will be hijacked! is this another Nallege attempt? post you opinion here dont start the same thread. http://www.eastsideboxing.com/forum/showthread.php?t=168876
You're welcome. Seriously though - after Cotto knocks Pac out everybody who's saying there isn't a size difference will say that the only reason Cotto won is because he was so much bigger than him.
why all the hate towards the ts? just looking at the 2, cotto looks like the naturally bigger man. also, would anyone debate this: pac comfortably makes 140, cotto kills himself to make 140.
STFU noob Na seriously, i agree with you. Doesnt seem to be too much of a difference. Pac's a big boy these days. Big head 'n' big bodi
i'd say there is a huge height difference in favor of pacman. he's even taller than ron artest! This content is protected nut:nut