This is a counter to the other thread.
Pac completely deserved it. Remember it's called FIGHTER of the decade, not boxer of the decade.
The criteria the writers/experts used to judge, was tailor made for pac's boxing personality, not floyds.
If the award was called BOXER of the decade, I can 100% guarantee you that it would have gone to floyd.
I don't see why *****s are so angry. Fighters are fighters and boxers are boxers. When you mix the two you will get exciting style match ups. I await to see this in november of 2010.
Floyd fans you should be happy that he won the award.
Isn't floyd a pure boxer?
Why would you want to be associated with an award that is irrelevant to your favourite boxer?
some additional input:
actually you have a point there. I agree.
lol, I didn't know you were in the BWAA. Sorry.
But yes, achievements is a stronger argument and if I'm not mistaken, pacquiao has held more ring titles hasn't he?
He also defeated a prime barrera.
Pac completely deserved it. Remember it's called FIGHTER of the decade, not boxer of the decade.
The criteria the writers/experts used to judge, was tailor made for pac's boxing personality, not floyds.
If the award was called BOXER of the decade, I can 100% guarantee you that it would have gone to floyd.
I don't see why *****s are so angry. Fighters are fighters and boxers are boxers. When you mix the two you will get exciting style match ups. I await to see this in november of 2010.
Floyd fans you should be happy that he won the award.
Isn't floyd a pure boxer?
Why would you want to be associated with an award that is irrelevant to your favourite boxer?
some additional input:
Originally posted by Asian Sensation
View Post
lol, I didn't know you were in the BWAA. Sorry.
But yes, achievements is a stronger argument and if I'm not mistaken, pacquiao has held more ring titles hasn't he?
He also defeated a prime barrera.
Comment