Why Are the Broner Apologists Bringing Up Rios?

I will answer that when you define apologist for me:deal

 

You didn't know "The Cobra" was one quarter Somalian? :deal

 

:good I don't believe it would have changed the outcome of the fight whatsoever but we'll never know so neither opinion can honestly be wrong in this situation.. I've just not seen anyone say they believe he would have lost the fight, besides maybe Bazooka, can't remember for sure if he did.

 

that is not a definition of apologist:deal

 

turbotime you can even google a definition I will except that you dont even have to craft one yourself

 

Well it's hard to miss, given that he's on hbo every time out no matter what kind of comp he's fighting.

But how come you're surprised about the backlash, Pac's first cw request got 1000 times more criticism. How's a cw worse than missing both weighins by 3.5 lbs? At least you're not ambushing your opponent.

 

you still wont define it. But nobody was defending Broner. When someone says he is unprofessional that is not defending am I correct?

 

Pac was held to a higher standard at that point in his career by most, and it wasn't the fact that it was a catch weight, it was the fact that the catch weight fight was for Cotto's title he won at 147.

One is cheating the opponent, one is cheating the history books and the opponent from weighing in at the full limit for the belt. Both opponents in the end agreed to fight, and both situations are ****ed up. :yep

 

it depends ? is saying somebody is unprofessional defending them yes or no?

 

But Broner aspires to the same standard, it's not good to be cutting corners so early, daddy Floyd never did while facing more serious comp at 130. Pac went through 6 divisions before asking for a cw. Broner just called out Rios at a catchweight where Rios already looked like a POW. i guess that's ok with you, unless Rios wins a belt and puts it at stake?