Shane is going to get screwed twice out of the legit welterweight championship

Sorry, I misread your last post.

 

The Ring completely ****ed that one up. They withheld giving the belt to Mosley because of Paul Williams of all people. A guy at the time who wasn't even campaigning at Welterweight, and still is not. Good one, Doug Fischer and co. :roll:

 

But I think the fact that Shane refused to make the fight with Williams kind of shows why they witheld the belt. No one wanted to face Williams and given that he had already beat Marg at the time the decision made a lot of sense.

Especially when you consider that the thread is about Shane being number when he only beat a guy that Williams beat first.

 

Is Paul Williams a Welterweight?? Is he fighting at that weight?? NO. Williams is too busy chasing any potential payday across three different weight classes to dedicate himself to any single division. "No one wanted to face Williams??" GTFOH. Clottey has BEEN ready.

 

You're rewriting history. I'm not even sure whether you're even referring to the Cotto/Margarito fight or the Margarito/Mosley fight? You seem to be conflating the two in your memory.

Williams had fought at welterweight (avenging his defeat to Quintana) a month prior to Cotto fighting Margarito. Cotto against Margarito was not for the Ring title because Williams was ranked two at WW and had previously defeated Margarito. That's a perfectly logical decision.

The issue in the Mosley/Margarito fight was Cotto, not Williams. Cotto was ranked two in The Ring rankings at that time and had beaten Mosley in Mosley's last fight at welterweight. This one's a no brainer imo. When the Ring belt is supposed to represent 'the man' at the weight, how can a vacancy possibly be resolved by a fight involving someone who lost the last time they fought at the weight?

People arguing this are indulging in pure historical revisionism, misremembering the facts to suit their current biases.

 

CLEARLY, you did not read the responses of The Ring's advisory panel. FAIL. :roll: I'm rewriting history?? :roll:

Stick with the ****ing SUBJECT, bucky.

This content is protected

 

There's thirty five members of the Ring advisory panel and you just quoted one atsch

Meanwhile, you fail to mention (and if you got it from the source that I think you did, it's right there in the same article) that the question sent out from Ring editor Nigel Collins specifically highlighted Cotto as the issue: "

This content is protected

"

And the responses also were along the same lines:

This content is protected

I'm not sure Williams was even ranked at welterweight by The Ring at that point. Once again, completely agenda-based revisionist and selective posting from yourself.

 

To begin with, Bucky, I quoted Fischer because Fischer is who I ripped in the post you were responding to. atsch

That's the "stick with the ****ing SUBJECT" part. HELLO??

Other than that, some of the panelists made it about Williams and some made it about Cotto. You just said it yourself, Bucky. We're quoting the SAME ARTICE. :roll: So tell me again it COMPLETELY wasn't about Williams. Say that dumb **** again. I just posted OTHERWISE. Again.

Go ahead and spew some of that long winded nonsense about people creating their own realities and other assorted HORSE****.

 

WAIT? It wasn't? :rofl Read it again, Einstein.

 

Watching Mosely fight the winner of Pac / Mayweather would be sweet.

I absolutely loved his fight against Margarito.

 

Floyd beat Baldomir who beat Judah for the linear championship, so Floyd is the champ.

 

Your actual post was: "The Ring completely ****ed that one up. They withheld giving the belt to Mosley because of Paul Williams of all people. A guy at the time who wasn't even campaigning at Welterweight, and still is not. Good one, Doug Fischer and co. :roll:"

That sounds to me like you're referring to the ring advisory panel. Which was exactly what my reply referred to. I'm not sure what you think the subject is.

Once more, you've quoted one person mentioning Williams, despite the fact that the issue raised by the Ring editor regarded Cotto. No evidence that anyone else factored Williams in, and Fischer was entirely wrong to do so imo as Williams was not ranked at WW at that time. I've quoted the editor of the Ring saying that most respondents cited Cotto as the reason.

The question you really need to answer is this: If the ring magazine title is supposed to define 'the man' at a weight, how can a fight for a vacant title possibly feature someone who lost their last fight at the weight to another fighter who is still fighting at that weight?

 

Dude, you're replying to posts that you've already replied to, had a reply to your reply, and replied to the reply to your reply.

You need to get a grip :yep

 

Cobbler, you're wrong. You can try and tell me "how it sounded," but I'm not going for it. Fischer was who I mentioned, and trying to stretch your argument into some silly nonsense about "The Ring editor" - like his job title changes everything, is weak, bud.

One person? No ****. How many people did I name? ONE? atsch That **** is WEAK too. :roll:

You are right that Fischer was entirely off base... That we agree on.

 

Don't start CRYING now.