The "All Things Mayweather/Pacquiao" Express!!!!!!

Praytell good NaySayer, if context is important as you say (refer to post #255 lest you accuse me of putting words in your mouth after you have already typed them), then we must refer to post #246 (McManama et al, 2011) and question the depth and breadth of the division an athlete is or is not ranked in.

Kindest regards.

 

So eloquently put. It's a shame that naysayer will respond with some bolded profanities.

 

Baldomir was coming off of an impressive win over the #1 guy in the division. Cotto was coming off of a KO LOSS.

Simple arithmetic.

1 + 1 = 2

WTF are you talking about?

NOBODY thought Spinks should have got the nod over Holmes in the rematch. But guess what Genius? Spinks walked out of the ring HW champ that night.

How I scored those fights doesn't matter in the least. The official results are what matters.

Morrer got the nod over Holyfield.
Foreman got the nod over Schulz.
Briggs got the nod over Foreman.

Do I agree with all of those results? No. But those are the official results that will go down into the record books and, unfortunately, they can't be changed. We have to live with them.

So, you telling me that Briggs wasn't the legit *lineal* HW champion all because YOU didn't agree with the official results of Holyfield Morrer I or Foreman Schulz is essentially MEANINGLESS....

 

no, cotto was coming off a close win over a top 5 WW in clottey (a man who beat judah very convincingly despite what you may recall)

if you think that spinks was the premiere hw after the rematch with holmes, there really is no hope for you.

so, as you said, you disagree with those results. so tell me what use is being the lineal champion if there have been a string of incorrect results which sees a fight between shannon briggs and a 50 year old man being for the *so called* championship? what value is that when it was unanimously considered that the winner of tyson-holyfield was the real champion.

relying on 1+1=2 won't get you very far: synergy.

 

atsch Jesus Christs...this passes for boxing knowledge these days? An overly simplistic analysis? :roll:

 

Baldomir's win was not impressive - he never performed impressively. Gatti was severely damaged by then. It was due to Judah's mental fragility, a man who never won a big fight save Spinks II and lost a fair amount of small ones.

And, as already mentioned, Cotto was coming off a win. Clottey and Cotto should both beat Baldomir, then or now. What's the point of this comparison?

Gatti made Gomez look like sugar ray robinson, and Cotto carried gomez because he felt sorry for him, accidentally knocking him down with jabs and stuff.

 

Cotto is not miles above Shane, and Baldomir actually owns a win over Clottey. Just pointing out facts.

 

watch the fight and tell me baldomir won it.

 

Pacquiao beat ancient Shane and dlh at 147, Clottey and Cotto at ww.

Floyd beat Judah, Baldomir, and old Shane. We won't count Mitchell.

Pac and Floyd were in tougher fighters at the lower weights than they were at ww.

 

Post the video for all to see.

 

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUofhw6RQvs&playnext=1&list=PL7ED89D508D0B16DB[/ame]

 

That's all. Fans get to make up their own mind if Clottey used his head all night. :good.

 

:good

 

Clottey was giving Cotto the business. Many, if not most, felt Cotto LOST that fight. But that's besides the point. Baldomir beat the top guy in the division. Cotto beat arguably a top 5 guy after coming off of a KO LOSS.

Context.

Spinks what the Man @ HW. No disputing that.

Sorry but in order to BE the Man you have to BEAT the Man. And no, it was NOT "unanimously" considered that the winner of Tyson-Holyfield would be the "rea" champion. Only misinfored individuals would have thought that.

Fact is Forman was the Man by virtue of the FACT that he beat Morrer. Briggs was the Man by virtue of the FACT that he beat Foreman.

1 + 1 = 2

What is so difficult about this simple concept that you FAIL to understand?

 

It's crazy seeing Clottey aggressive right