Errol Spence is top 10 h2h at welterweight

1) of course things outside the welterweight division can be used. If Pacquiao proved his heart at at 135, but not at 147, does that mean he didn't have it? No, of course it doesn't. They're only irrelevant because you want to heighten whatever cheap argument you're presenting for Spence. If Hagler couldn't stop Duran, Spence isn't going to. No arbitrary 'rule' is going to change that, buddy. Ignoring fights where he was in his late 30s and older is now cherry picking? Not accepting his FINAL fight is now cherry picking? FOH.

2) You thought Pacquiao lost to Bradley any point you've made in that second paragraph is now completely invalid. Also, "might have lost IF" isn't an argument. Pacquiao washed Bradley three times. He didn't once go life and death with him.

3) Neither were 'nerfed' by catch-weights. Cotto had come in at 146 in his previous fight, never had issues making weight. He was also far bigger than Pacquiao. Margarito was able to make 147, so 150 wasn't an issue and to further cement that, he was successfully rehydrated up to 165lbs in the ring. Also, two years is more than enough time to recover and the performance Margarito put forth showed he wasn't washed. Just not good enough.

And this "ignore bad performances" line needs to get lost. I'm not ignoring bad performances, I'm ignoring fights where Pacquiao was so obviously far past his best that it's not relevant.

4) Don't come at me about communication issues if you can't even read I never said Clottey was a better win, or a better fighter. And Margarito was better than Spence and would be a better win. Sorry to burst your bubble.

5) You're absolutely right, quality of opposition does matter. So can you please tell me who Spence has beaten who's better than Miguel Cotto? Hell, he hasn't even beaten anyone better than Bradley. Also, I can make every win sound like **** too. Beating a broken Kell Brook and a midget Mikey isn't enough to convince me he'd beat Manny Pacquiao. Also, your entire premise throughout this thread has been "use the eye test". I don't know what you were trying to gain by inviting a direct comparison between opposition

6) No, what's intellectual dishonesty is using the Pacquiao of the Horn and Ugas fights to analyse how a prime Pacquiao would do against Spence. Also, it's pretty simple to understand the idea that losses while well past his best don't have an impact, while the wins are still impressive. Hence why nobody gives a **** that Ali should've lost to Young, Shavers and Norton.

 

Roberto Duran didn't kill anyone at welterweight.

This content is protected

 

He beat up Carlos Palamino , and that's a far better win than Ugas.

 

Carlos was unmarked afterward. It was a boxing lesson, not a "killing."

Bad fighters went the distance with Duran at welter.

Ugas' head was twice its size for days after their fight.

 

That's the same lesson he'd give Spence, you know the kind. Like the one he laid on Ray Leonard, a far superior fighter to Spence

 

I watched Duran live then. He didn't put that type of boxing lesson on Zeferino Gonzales, for God's sake.

And he decisioned Ray Leonard by ONE point, and couldn't even go eight rounds in the return because Leonard humiliated him.

 

You think Spence is a better welterweight than Ray Leonard?

 

You never specifically said 147. Haha.

 

1) You'd be extremely surprised at how little weight effects the vast majority of physical attributes provided the athlete is still in top shape. Ignoring verifiable proof of these attributes - like Duran's chin being easily good enough to survive anything Spence throws at him - because it happened at a different weight is completely idiotic. You've got to use your eyes to determine the difference between the attributes displayed through different weights, and there's nothing yo suggest for a second that Duran's chin got better between his move from 147 to 160.

So answer me this, do you think Pacquiao was prime for Horn, Thurman and Ugas?

2) If you really want to cling to one of the worst robberies ever to prove your point, go for it. It doesn't make the argument any more shallow, or suggest your scoring ability is anything besides hilarious.

3) Again, please tell me if you actually think Pacquiao was prime for Horn, Thurman and Ugas?

4) Get your head out your arse. You're the mong here, making all the deluded claims. And I'm not even convinced you've actually ever watched a Margarito fight. Especially considering you think Shawn Porter was miles faster and had a higher workrate.

5) You actually believe Ugas would beat Cotto and you're going on about me overrating opposition?

6) It's an exaggerated comparison, but the logic still applies. Pacquiao is a lightweight beating world class guys 15lbs heavier and 10 years younger. Losses are to be expected at that stage, and that's why his wins are so impressive and his losses are so inconsequential. A prime Pacquiao vs Ugas looks like the Clottey fight and a prime Pacquiao vs Horn looks like the Hatton fight.

"I'll use fights from welterweight" = I'll use fights from when he was 40 years old

 

**** imagine only being good enough to beat a prime Ray Leonard by a point..what a scrub lol

 

I agree.