Clearly, Floyd is a better challenge and Pacquiao is a better challenge for him than Cotto.
Why would Andre Berto or Victor Ortiz be a better challenge? Both would be good fights for Pacquiao, but they aren't objectively any better of opponents than Bradley. To argue differently, really isn't giving Bradley enough credit. Neither of them places p4p, Bradley does. Both have lost, Bradley hasn't. Bradley schooled Lamont Peterson. Victor Oritz drew with Lamont Peterson. Victor Ortiz quit against Maidana. Floyd knocked Ortiz out in five rounds! Berto may be interesting, but he's too flat-footed for Pacquiao. Bradley is better defensively than Berto. I'll agree there are arguments for each as to why Berto or Ortiz would be good opponents for Pacquiao, but there is no clear front runner, other than Floyd. Bradley is a live body. He's in his prime. He's undefeated. He's better defensively than Berto and Ortiz, which seems to be Pacquiao's weakness.
You're letting your hatred for Pacquiao cloud your judgment. You should be excited Pacquiao is facing someone with a real shot here.
Why would Andre Berto or Victor Ortiz be a better challenge? Both would be good fights for Pacquiao, but they aren't objectively any better of opponents than Bradley
Both, Berto and Ortiz, at least have KO power to hurt Pac and are natural welterweights whereas Bradley will have to go up in weight to fight Pacquiao. So, not only is he not known for having a KO punch but he is also going up in weight.
You're letting your hatred for Pacquiao cloud your judgment. You should be excited Pacquiao is facing someone with a real shot here
Not rooting for a guy doesn’t necessarily mean you hate him. I root for Chavez Jr. but that doesn’t mean I blind myself from seeing that regardless of him being young, hungry, undefeated, and with a belt on his shoulder, he just doesn’t belong up there with the top big names just yet. See what I mean?
Sure, both Bradley and Cotto are not what we want for Floyd and Pacquiao but at least Floyd is going up to Cotto’s comfortable weight instead of weight-draining him.
I'm noticing with almost EVERY argument you make, you say things like,
"...and anyone who thinks otherwise is really XYZ"
or
"You're clearly saying that because you hate fighter XYZ" (who coincidentally is one of your fave fighters)
You kinda need to stop that..it adds no more weight to your point and in fact, diminishes it.
Yes, it should be stated every once in a while if somebodies argument is overly biased but when you use it to back up every point you make in every post, it sounds like you're clutching at straws..
How many leftovers have Pacquiao fought from Floyd and vice versa? Sure, I also think it is a bit hypocritical from Floyd to fight Pacquiao's left over but difference is that Floyd is not making Cotto weight-drain or meet at a catchweight. Floyd is going up to Cotto's comfortable weight. When Pacquiao wanted to go for a rematch with Cotto (which seems a bit off after seeing how he beat him), Pacquiao didn't agree to go up to his weight.
Last edited by Chino; 02-26-2012 at 09:01 PM.
I wasn't even criticizing Floyd's choice of fighting Pac's leftover in that post. It has nothing to do with that. It is about Floyd's leftover and the leftover of his leftover being considered as a bigger challenge for Pacquiao than Bradley.
Weren't you one of those who criticized him for fighting Floyd's leftover? If not, then disregard that question.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks