Good fighters win titles @ least @ 3 different divisions

Dude, I don't think ANYONE is saying its nothing, and Pacquiao fighting Mayweather at 140 is different than say, fighting Malignaggi (another titlist) at 140. The point is, the opponents matter a lot. In the modern era its relatively easy to pick out the weakest titlist in the division and take the belt.

To elaborate, how much credit does De La Hoya deserve for beating Sturm? (even if it WASNT such a controversial decision, he clearly lost badly to Bhop, the REAL middleweight champion.) How much credit does Hatton deserve for beating Collazo? How much does Malignaggi for beating Ndou? Not all titles are the same, and, winning in more than one weight class doesn't ALWAYS signify the greatness that, say, defending your title a record 20 times in a row does, or beating all of the best fighters in your weight class does.

Saying that it doesnt necessarily make you greater than other fighters who havent wpm titles in multiple divisions is not the same as saying it is nothing.

 

It helps their cause.

But honestly, if you think Trinidad is greater than Robinson than we are done discussing this. That is so obviously incorrect that you are no longer bothering to base your arguments in reality.

 

SUGAR RAY ROBINSON... please, explain how any of the fighters you mentioned were better than the best fighter of all time.

 

He's ****ing with you man, don't bite.

Here's the answer I would write if I took up his alias...


SUGAR RAY ROBINSON... please, explain how any of the fighters you mentioned were better than the best fighter of all time.
A: Because they won titles in 3 divisions. Something Ray couldn't manage.

Just agree, and say, sure, anyone that becomes the undisputed champ in 3 different weight classes is great. So long as they're undisputed.

 

First of all...how can anyone argue the opinion of a person named "Expert". It's a futile proposition.

Secondly, here's a little rule of thumb. Chances are, if you know a fighter's name-he's not "good", he's "great". (exception made for Eric Crumble) There's no such thing as a mediocre sword swallower. If you're making money in that line of work, you're probably one of the best in the world at what you do.

 

Ali even said SRR was better. Anyways, answer the question. Why is any one of those fighters better than SRR? You are trying to distract me with some other bull****, trying to get ME to answer why SRR is the greatest when that isn't the question at hand.

Explain how any 3+ time titlist is better than SRR and you win the argument, I can't provide a better example than that. If you can't do it, you are wrong. I am not even asking you to show how EVERY 3+ titlist is better (which is what you've implied, that every one who wins 3 titles is better than everyone who doesn't). I mean, just name ONE that is decisively better and greater and I'll concede.

But you can't and you know you can't.

 

he quit cause of exhaustion he was winning the fight till that.
dont forget he started at lightweight and was trying to win the 175 title.