Questioned Ring Welterweight sites: Why Pacquiao Inclusion and Keep Ennis challenge logic

Manny Pacquiao has entered in due course #9 at the welter weight sites of the circle today. The list is missing two distinctive names, Devin Haney and Karen Chukhadzhian, both of whom fight at a much higher level than the 46 -year -old Pacquiao.

Other lost names from the Cylch’s updated sites: Rolando ‘Rolly’ Romero and Jack Catterall. Those fighters deserve to be on the list.

Ennis welterweight confusion

The recent Jaron ‘Boots’ Ennis sites as their champion have despite moving up to 154 and is already listed in the department. It doesn’t make sense because if there was time to include Pacquiao on the list, they could have removed ennis.

Champion: Jaron Ennis

1. Brian Norman Jr.
2. Eimantas stanionis
3. Giovanni Santillan
4. Roman polanco
5. Shakhram Giyasov
6. Alexis Rocha
7. Raul curiel
8. Mario Barrios
9. Manny Pacquiao
10. Ekow Essusman

Pacquiao did not look good enough in his 12-round draw against WBC’s 147-weight champion Mario Barrios to be included in the top 10 list of the ring. He looked old, past him, and could only fight hard in the first nine rounds against the weakest link among the promoters in welter weight. Manny’s inability to dominate Barrios was enough reason not to include it.

Barrios should not be on the top 10 list of the ring, because he looked poor in his last two fights, battling to a draw against diarist Abel Ramos, and failing to beat past his main Pacquiao.

Other names that do not belong to the top 10 of the Cylch: Giovanni Santillan and Alexis Rocha. Those two fighters are not worthy of being even in the top 15.

My better list

1. Brian Norman Jr.
2. Shakhram Giyasov
3. Karen Chukhadzhian
4. Devin Haney
5. Raul curiel
6. Romero ‘Rolly’ Rolando
7. Jack Catterall
8. Eimantas stanionis
9. Roman polanco
10. Ekow Essusman

Roman Polanco fights well enough to deserve the #9 van the ring has been used for Pacquiao. Polanco would have too many youths for Manny and probably turned it if they fought.