How can u rank Floyd higher all-time p4p when Pac has better resume & achievements?

You're a liar though. Keep at it. :good

 

From page 3 of this garbage:

BadJuju still doesn't understand it 9 pages of dog**** later.

Can someone else try explaining it to this tiresome moron??


This post is enough for me to sign off happy. Good night gentlemen.

 

Are you so horrendously inbred that you still cannot read or comprehend this simple post:

Quote:
Originally Posted by DINAMITA

This content is protected

Bill Butcher's post seemed to say that his main reason for ranking Mayweather higher was h2h/ability etc. Now stances like that I do not think have any place in an all-time pound-for-pound thread. Stances which take it into account as the minor factor that it is do though. I take it into account as a minor factor, but it would not be something I would cite as a reason in an all-time pound-for-pound discussion, unless it is in my eyes a deciding factor between two men I rank very very closely.

Hopkins has a better resume than Jones, Jones has better weight-jumping feats than Hopkins. Because the peripheral factors (Jones beat a green Hopkins fair and square and Jones was IMO a superior fighter at his peak) go in Jones's favour, I go with Jones overall.

Pacquiao has a better resume than Mayweather. Pacquiao has better weight-jumping feats than Mayweather. And they have never fought. No other factors are needed to take into account in this one.

 

I'm sorry I don't have the time or energy to write a gargantuan explanation to follow every single post, to justify it to bitchy lurkers like you.

Next time I want to make a comment like:

"I can't see how you can rank Floyd higher than Pac because Pac has a better resume and better feats of weight-jumping"

I will follow it with the same footer I will attach to every post to stop brainless dogs like you slavering after me for an entire evening:


"I arrived at this hypothesis by examining several key factors. Factor one was resume. Resume is a list of all the fighters that the boxer in question has ever fought. The second factor is achievements, such as number of titles won and number of weight divisions competed in. Now when these two factors go in one fighter's favour, there is no need to move on to further factors of peripheral importance...."


I'll do that after each and every comment, and then you won't need to burst out crying at what you perceive to be (shock horror :admin) an inconsistency in the system of someone you don't know, when in fact it is merely that he didn't think he needed to set out an exhaustive criteria for every comment.

H2H/ability can indeed be discounted in this case as I stated for the above reasons.



Man, I can't wait till you grow enough balls to make your own threads! I'll be lurking and picking away just like you. ****ing moron.

:hi:

 

If that loser had accepted my perfectly full and sound explanation on page 3 instead of acting like a sour vagina all day we wouldn't have all had to be bored by this shite. I hate getting dragged into this bollocks. Maybe in future I'll stick to making threads about entrance music and therefore will not be able to be whined at for having opinions and making threads.

 

Prime Marquez beats prime Corrales at sfw.

Pac only had one fight at lw, so he hasn't fought enough there to have met a Castillo calibre.

He has fought once at lww and once at ww, against Hatton and Oscar. Not as good as Zab 'Big Fight Loser' Judah, who was beaten by the mighty Baldomir?

Barrera, Morales and Marquez were FAR greater fighters at their weights than Judah, Corrales and Castillo were at theirs you biased little man.

 

But your argument can just be turned the other way Bill.

Look at Floyd's struggles with Augustus, Judah, Oscar and his loss to Castillo.

Look at Manny's incredible performances in Barrera I, Morales II, Hatton and Oscar.

Both men have had their struggles and both have had their amazing performances.

Pac's displays against Barrera first time out and against Hatton are easily as impressive as anything Floyd has ever done, considering standard of opponent and standard of performance/dominance.

 

Point 1 - Your lack of knowledge has let you down again, you rank amateur. Does Calzaghe have better feats of weight-jumping than Lopez?? Nope. Fail.

Point 2 - I have the brain and balls to set out a system and make threads based on it. You do not have either.

Point 3 - My system is indeed watertight, it works fine. It's not infallible, it's not science, but it does work. You have had it explained to you numerous times and simply refuse to accept it because that would mean admitting you were an angry little drunken knob for 9 pages.

Point 4 - I do not respect people who try to pick apart the ideas and proposals of others, yet are not big enough to make any themselves. Therefore I do not respect you, drunk or sober.

:good