Quote Originally Posted by frankenfrank View Post
Quote Originally Posted by ElTerribleMorales View Post
I own the fight, seen both fights numerous times, and both performances are boxing lessons handed out by Whitaker, Ramirez was nothing more then a cab driver with a good beard, fought the best and lost every time aside from his win over El Chapo and the gift decision against Whitaker first time out, unlike anything you post this is FACT not OPINION, you are the epitome of a casual viewer of the sport rambling on about things you have no idea what you're talking about
Fact is that 2 out of 3 of d judges agreed with me , at least 2 out of 3 knew how 2 score a fight .
And i bet u haven't seen Ramirez vs Rosario #1 and Ramirez vs Arguello , because Ramirez did not lose those 2 either .
But even supposing a fighter fought great fighters and lost every time by decision , not 2 mention while being d aggressor and not 2 mention that this is not even d case here because Ramirez actually won once by stoppage and once by decision , in addition 2 2 robberies , such a fighter at least proves that he can last d distance with greats , which is a telling thing and a necessary condition 2 greatness . Such a fighter still proved something that Ricardo Lopez never proved , not even once .
Ramirez however proved it plenty of times and proved even more than that , he proved that he can also win by decision against good fighters , which is not much more really , but also win by stoppage , and that against a proven puncher like Edwin Rosario .
2 out of 3 judges had Bradley beating Pacquiao, doesn't mean it was the right fucking result haha and a loss is a loss be it by competitive decision, lopsided decision, or a flat out ass whooping, if you couldn't land the W it means you weren't on that level