shane mosley is a lightweight, winky's win over him means nothing!

so he's losses at 147 mean nothing? To me he looks like a natural welterweight.

 

But he has fought in wayyyy over light weight for over 8 years. He is and has
been a welter almost all that time. Even light middle.:think

 

I agree Mosley was a beast at Lightweight.

Where is Winky?
Anyone know if he has any upcoming fights?

 

Imo he WAS a natural lightweight at some point. But not anymore though:nono that time is over. He is now a natural welterweight I THINK.

NB.: Who is to judge what his natural weight is, it's just a rough guess anyway. And ''natural weight'' is measured by tests such as a BMI test.
I for example, am 1.73 and 67kg is my ideal weight according to scientifical books. However when I box at -60 I feel like superman.

 

I agree with the guys that said he is a natural welter. He is definatly a lot smaller than winky but I would not say that the wins mean nothing. The shane that fought winkly would probably still have beaten every other ranked 154 pounder that night.

 

But he was a light-middleweight when Winky beat him. And I agree by that stage he filled up 147/154 pretty well, and some of his best wins have come at 147/154.

 

Ok so if you're using that theory then Roy Jones Jrs loss to Tarver doesnt count cause Jones isnt a natural Light heavy, And all of Chris Byrds losses dont count because he's not a natural Heavyweight

 

you know mosley was a 3-1 fav over winky

the fact winky upset him alone is big. i personally didnt think mosley had a chance and had i had a bookey. i would have banked on that one

 

You're still bitter.