Whos is better? Ottkes 21 defences or Hopkins 20 defences?

You debate ******ed threads. Who is better? Ottkes 21 defense or Hopkins 20 defense? Whats next on your thread, Who has the best undefeated record, Marciano 44+? or Valuev 44+?

 

You cant debate anything about SNV, he always wins:nono

 

To you it's only facts if it's involved a european fighter.

 

Pretzel logic sir. It makes no difference how many fights Tito hat at 160, he was still a natural middleweight. The dude walked around at an in shape buck eighty and thats why he had mutant like power at 147 and 154. Beating Echols is no great feat and I believe one of the judges had it by a point so hardly a schooling and it was for a belt that was vacated when Sven became super duper champ so the Wba could collect more sanctioning fees. And really what does holding a piece of tin really mean. Two fights later he lost to Siaca and the rest of his career has been a dud. I guess we will just have to disagree and leave it at that. I think the facts speak for themselves.

 

Maybe bailey next thread is like this "Who's better at crusierweight before moving up to heavyweight? David Haye? or Prime Evander Holyfield?

 

A ******ed mu****a that hasnt watched a round of boxing could prove your bias ass wrong...It really doesnt take much to prove you wrong.

And tell your know-nothing ass friend HEADGIVER, he needs to atleast try to answer the topic instead of going left field on us!

 

america has historically had better boxers than europe. every thread, every post, every lame argument in the world won't change that

 

I got a question, who's dumber? Bailey? HeadBanger? or Herbzig? Hmm tough one.

 

I rest my f4cking case.