most definitely kermit cintron belongs on the list of fighters who should be getting a lot of credit for having tough fights! i don't agree with the premise that you've got to be a top ten p4p fighter to be on this list. that's utter hogwash!

again, will someone explain to me why pacquiao deserves to be no. 5 on the all-time list? most of his fans think so and i just don't see how he can do this with all this cherry picking. no doubt he's an all time great but at #5? that's ridiculous! and i don't care how many division titles he's won! one of them was bullshit (david diaz) and two others were at catch weights. and besides, he hardly ever sticks around that division to defend his titles, which i think really separates the true great champions from the good champions.

again, with timothy bradley, alexander, amir khan, sergio martinez, andre ward, alfredo angulo, cotto at 154 with a catchweight, sergio mora, paul williams, yuri foreman, joan guzman, all available, why oh why did they handpick the ancient shane mosley? people, the guy is done, why should pacquiao even bother to fight him? why? because he's a safe fight, that's why!

look, after shane destroyed margarito, shane badly wanted to fight pacquiao even at 140. what did roach say? na, he's too good! (exact words). but only after he saw how washed up and vulnerable shane was against mayweather and the limited sergio mora, all of the sudden he's qualified as a viable opponent for pacquiao? double standards and contradictions, anyone?