Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Which of these guys deserves HOF consideration more? Miguel Cotto or Glen Johnson?

Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
    #21
    Johnson is better than Cotto ever was. Anyone who votes for Cotto is kidding themselves here man.

    Comment

      #22
      Originally posted by Iceta Lives View Post
      Johnson is taking Cloud and Dawson to hell and back while Cotto is fighting Foreman and Chavez Jr and Johnson is a grandfather compared to Miguel. Lol. I figured maybe the Cotto stans would come crawling out of their rat holes in this thread. And little do we know, here they are voting for Cotto.
      Lmao!!!

      Comment

        #23
        Johnson. Having said that I still think Glen is overrated on here simply because he is a "nice" guy.

        Comment

          #24
          Considering how long Glen Johnson has been doing what he did last night, definitely Glen.

          Comment

            #25
            Neither imo.

            Comment

              #26
              LOL how could anyone pick Glen Johnson? The guy has 14 losses, and don't believe the hype, they can't ALL be robberies. In fact, the only win he really has that means anything is Roy Jones Jr. in 2004. He lost both fights to Tarver and got the benefit of the doubt in the first fight, which most people felt he lost. Yeah, he's given a lot of guys tough fights, but at the end of the day, he's lost to every good fighter he's ever beaten (other than Roy), so how impressive is that?

              Cotto on the other hand is a 3-weight champion and only has two losses. And NEITHER are even legit to some people. Margarito was using illegal wraps, and Pacquiao may have been on roids (in addition to making Cotto weigh in at 145). Cotto has no real losses on his resume. He is so far above Johnson that I have to laugh out ****ing loud at almost every post on the first page of this thread. Cotto by a landslide.

              Comment

                #27
                They are close to the same taking completely different roads. I would assume most boxing experts have Cotto on the fence and Johnson not far behind though.

                Johnson is getting overrated on this thread though. A lot of his so called robberies against Ottke and Woods, I have read were fair decisions. I haven't seen the fights though so I can't comment. And the guy has a lot of losses period. Also a close win over Tarver isn't all that great. Tarver is so damn overrated. Same with an anciaent Griffin and Johnson.

                Comment

                  #28
                  Originally posted by DiegoFuego View Post
                  LOL how could anyone pick Glen Johnson? The guy has 14 losses, and don't believe the hype, they can't ALL be robberies. In fact, the only win he really has that means anything is Roy Jones Jr. in 2004. He lost both fights to Tarver and got the benefit of the doubt in the first fight, which most people felt he lost. Yeah, he's given a lot of guys tough fights, but at the end of the day, he's lost to every good fighter he's ever beaten (other than Roy), so how impressive is that?

                  Cotto on the other hand is a 3-weight champion and only has two losses. And NEITHER are even legit to some people. Margarito was using illegal wraps, and Pacquiao may have been on roids (in addition to making Cotto weigh in at 145). Cotto has no real losses on his resume. He is so far above Johnson that I have to laugh out ****ing loud at almost every post on the first page of this thread. Cotto by a landslide.
                  It's because Johnson is a good guy and peopel want to root for him. He lost the Dawson fight barely, he won the Tarver fight barely. Which one will they mention was a close fight that the other guy should have won? The Dawson one.

                  Comment

                    #29
                    Originally posted by DiegoFuego View Post
                    LOL how could anyone pick Glen Johnson? The guy has 14 losses, and don't believe the hype, they can't ALL be robberies. In fact, the only win he really has that means anything is Roy Jones Jr. in 2004. He lost both fights to Tarver and got the benefit of the doubt in the first fight, which most people felt he lost. Yeah, he's given a lot of guys tough fights, but at the end of the day, he's lost to every good fighter he's ever beaten (other than Roy), so how impressive is that?

                    Cotto on the other hand is a 3-weight champion and only has two losses. And NEITHER are even legit to some people. Margarito was using illegal wraps, and Pacquiao may have been on roids (in addition to making Cotto weigh in at 145). Cotto has no real losses on his resume. He is so far above Johnson that I have to laugh out ****ing loud at almost every post on the first page of this thread. Cotto by a landslide.
                    Explain to me how Malinaggi, Clottey, Judah, Corley, and Torres are better than Griffin, Tarver, Gonzales (who beat Michaelski), Dawson, and Cloud. I'll wait.

                    Comment

                      #30
                      Originally posted by -Antonio- View Post
                      It's because Johnson is a good guy and peopel want to root for him. He lost the Dawson fight barely, he won the Tarver fight barely. Which one will they mention was a close fight that the other guy should have won? The Dawson one.
                      Cotto barely beat Mosley. Barely beat Clottey. And both of those guys were beaten decisively by Floyd and Pac respectively. Lol.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X
                      TOP