Was Shane gassed because he wasn't on EPO??

:yep I know, u r absolutely right. As sad as it may sound, the minute Mayweather wins *******s will claim that absurdity!

 

Wrong. Welterweight is 147. If it was a legit welterweight fight, Cotto would have come in at that. He was not allowed to fight at his natural weight, therefore it is not a welterweight fight. It is a catchweight fight.

Clottey was not top 3, and in fact his marquee win is a past-prime Zab Judah. So again, when is Pac going to beat a top 3 welterweight at his natural weight? He has the opportunity to do so with Mayweather, yet seems unwilling to take a perfectly legitimate 14 day window, when they previous only asked for 5 days.

 

David Diaz isn't B class. And it doesn't matter most fought De La Hoya would beat him when it was first announced, I defy you to find one half-knowledgable poster who still picked Oscar after the fight night weights were announced.

 

Nobody has made a decision, it is a legitimate question. If someone concluded that Shane was guilty in other fights then that would be your "arbitrary decision", as far as I can see all we have is a question, one that unfortunately can probably never be answered with any degree of certainty, but a legitimate question non the less.

 

People stating Shane was poor because he wasn't on EPO seems pretty arbitrary to me. True the OP asked the question, but others within the thread seem to be making some pretty wild assumptions. Which seems par for the course since December.

 

Yeah, I noticed you beat me to the very same point!

 

I totally agree that it's absurd to accuse Shane of anything in previous fights based on Saturday, but the question can be raised. It just one we'll probably never have an answer to.

It's all idol speculation which after all is what we specialise in here.

 

Ok. He's a C class fighter. He's not an A- lister that's for sure.

I am not going to look for half knowledgable posters because it's a waste of time but it was fact that all the so called boxing experts who write articles about the sport and actually gets paid to write them claimed Pacquiao had zero chance at all.

 

shot is the word....

 

LOL somebody brought up why Roach denied a Pac fight against Mosley.

 

When did Pac agree? They asked for a 5-day window, Floyd offered 14 and then they came out first with 'I have a phobia of needles' and then 'I want a 24-day window'. I think it's Pac that keeps changing his mind. Keep digging, you are just getting further from the truth and showing yourself up to be an embarassment.

Yeah, left-over's. So being in a close, competitive 7-5/8-4 loss in which he didn't take all that much damage constitute's 'left-overs'? So if we are going by the basis that losses make people left-over's, when is the last time Pac beat an undefeated fighter?

Cotto was damaged-goods after the Margo beating and wasn't even allowed to fight at his natural weight. Why do you think they asked for the fight at 145 if Pac already fought at 147? The same reason they wouldn't fight Mosley above 142/143; 'Why should I give him the advantage'?

Yeah, yeah. How come Team Pacquiao refused to fight Mosley then?

So are you going to dig up these examples that you threatened to last time, or are you going to run away again? And speak English please you ****.

 

And boxing experts reflect the opinion of the hard-core fan, do they? Perhaps you should go and look at Bert Sugar's Top 100 fighters of all-time, and they decide whether you are going to use the assumptions of 'experts'.