Fights where "better resume" didn't mean a thing

Draw my ass, it was 9-3 Mayweather you crazy bat**** Pac****. :nut

The only draw was Bradley Pacquiao 1/2.

 

Real G vs Ginger

 

Benetiz vs Cevantes. Benetiz was maybe old enough to get a drivers' license.

Although 25-0, the only guy of note on Wilfred's record , had a 223 bout record of
134-70-19.....and we all know what the term "opponent" means.

 

So then would Charles Hatley vs. Anthony Mundine not count, then? :think

Hatley is much younger and fresher, but he was definitely 'brought in to lose' and Mundine had just recently beaten a much better known prime fighter in Rabchenko.

 

Rigo-Donaire

 

Foreman-Frazier is a great one.

Norton-Ali is another.

Morrison-Bentt

Barkley-Hearns

 

good one :good. Also Ishida-Kirkland

 

Every single fight that takes place.

once that bell rings that bs resumes gets kicked into the the grandstands.


I pitty the fool who can't grasp that fact.

This is true for any C, B and especially A level fighters.

Novice question


Yes, that's definition of a fact

 

Danny 'Little Red' Lopez vs Salvador Sanchez!:deal

 

Resumes only fight fights on internet message boards. There's a reason everyone's a genius in picking fantasy fights here instead of being a multi-millionaire by betting on real boxing fights using the same logic.

The same is true with film, to an extent. Always favoring the guy with the prettier film is a way fight fans trick themselves into thinking they're better predictors than they actually are. I'm just as guilty of it as the rest of us.

 

Is this another attempt by mentally ill losers like you to justify Golovkin's entire career?.

 

Ruenroeng just got KTFO by Casimero

 

:rofl:rofl:rofl