Fighter of the Decade????

[crold1]

[QUOTE=cortdawg25;7423435
Could floyd get foty by beating a washed up great and a contender in a year.
[/QUOTE]

Actually you just described Floyd's track to the 1998 FOTY (Ring's anyways; BWAA went with Mosley) when he beat Genaro and Manfredy.

[gqjohnb]

point taken. what i'm trying to explain here tho is the fact that people are saying like morales was severely washed up when pac fought him. sure, he didn't look that great against raheem but that was also after his first fight with pac which was brutal as hell. you can say that it might have been the result of all his wars with MAB but did he really look as bad until after he fought pac?

and yeah i'd like to add that the manner of how he beats them should be also added for all those criteria.

Alright I see your argument and I agree with the bold not sure why I left that out. You do have a point on the Morales statement but the fact of the matter was he didn't beat morales. He lost that fight definitively and won the second fight after morales was coming off a loss to raheem and pac never fought raheem. I don't give credit just for fighting a guy you only get credit if you win in my opinion and IMO Morales was without a doubt shot after the first pac fight debatable whether he was shot or not after the barrera wars. The only truly great win was against barrera the first time. That win you can make a case to be a more meaningful win than any in floyd's career but its still just one. Floyd was on top of the sport for a majority of the decade while manny wasn't so it is very much a worthy thread and question to ask.

[cortdawg25]

actually you just described floyd's track to the 1998 foty (ring's anyways; bwaa went with mosley) when he beat genaro and manfredy.

r u comparing the genaro that got beat by floyd to the morales that got beat by pacquiao??? Really, c'mon son!

Name genaro losses!!!


As far as manfredy, dude was on a crazy win streak when he faced a young up and coming floyd. Pacquiao was a legit pro whooping up on a washed morales and larios!

[Chups]

If floyd didn't take those years off it should have been an easy pick for him but I think its part favoritism and mostly a what have you done for me lately type of thing.

That's all Floyd do is easy pick.

Anyway...I do agree with you that Floyd would have taken it if he didn't had a 2 year layoff.... Floyd is the king of fantasy.

[Chups]

there not giving a black fighter "fighter of the decade" unless they absolutely have it......lol

Yeah they gave it to an Asian who is not American.

[crold1]

r u comparing the genaro that got beat by floyd to the morales that got beat by pacquiao??? Really, c'mon son!

Name genaro losses!!!


As far as manfredy, dude was on a crazy win streak when he faced a young up and coming floyd. Pacquiao was a legit pro whooping up on a washed morales and larios!

You asked if Floyd could win FOTY for beating a washed up great and a contender. Genaro was in his last year and retired after Floyd; most fighters retire when they're washed up. Manfredy was a solid contender.

Mayweather won FOTY in 1998 meeting the conditions you asked about.

Once again you're asking questions which say more about what you don't know than their need to be answered.

[WhoreUs]

Morales was washed up man....Berrera in the 2nd fight washed up

got outboxed my Marquez twice

you are telling me fighting MAB twice, JMM twice & Morales 3 times equates to being fighter of the decade?...lol

Pac fought these guys more than once genius
I don't view MAB 2 or Morales 3 as big wins
they look nice on paper but the 1st wins on those guys are what counts
what did Floyd do that was better?
and get off the JMM "won" ****
he lost twice, only a judge robbed Pac the 1st time

[ummmid]

Alright I see your argument and I agree with the bold not sure why I left that out. You do have a point on the Morales statement but the fact of the matter was he didn't beat morales. He lost that fight definitively and won the second fight after morales was coming off a loss to raheem and pac never fought raheem. I don't give credit just for fighting a guy you only get credit if you win in my opinion and IMO Morales was without a doubt shot after the first pac fight debatable whether he was shot or not after the barrera wars. The only truly great win was against barrera the first time. That win you can make a case to be a more meaningful win than any in floyd's career but its still just one. Floyd was on top of the sport for a majority of the decade while manny wasn't so it is very much a worthy thread and question to ask.

a win should be measured simply by the opponent, the timing, and the state of the opponent... not whether you were expected to win or not.

last time i checked he won against jmm the second fight didn't he? jmm was at the proper weight class, was on the list of top p4p, the timing wasn't bad, sure he didn't decimate JMM that time, but that can still be considered as a great win right? or are you going to list all those boxingsites/reporters/pinoys who had jmm winning that fight?

imo pac and pbf's claim over the fighter of the decade award was pretty much even until the end of 2009. i get the impression that they leaned towards pac not just because of his recent dominating victories but also the fact that he seemed to want it more.

who can blame them? you have a guy who was on top of his game, had ATG skills way ahead of his generation, but instead of further establishing his claim, retired a few times... and you have the other who was seemingly one dimensional at first but tried to prove himself over and over to the point of even catching the attention of some critics enough to accuse him of using PEDs. i know achievements alone should be seen for judging who deserves that award, but i'd be lying if i tell you right now that pac's drive alone could've swayed maybe one or two writers' opinions.

[Chups]

Anybody who gets accused of steroids because of his unbelievable accomplishments deserve fighter of the decade.

[crold1]

last time i checked he won against jmm the second fight didn't he? jmm was at the proper weight class, was on the list of top p4p, the timing wasn't bad, sure he didn't decimate JMM that time, but that can still be considered as a great win right? or are you going to list all those boxingsites/reporters/pinoys who had jmm winning that fight?

imo pac and pbf's claim over the fighter of the decade award was pretty much even until the end of 2009. i get the impression that they leaned towards pac not just because of his recent dominating victories but also the fact that he seemed to want it more.

who can blame them? you have a guy who was on top of his game, had ATG skills way ahead of his generation, but instead of further establishing his claim, retired a few times... and you have the other who was seemingly one dimensional at first but tried to prove himself over and over to the point of even catching the attention of some critics enough to accuse him of using PEDs. i know achievements alone should be seen for judging who deserves that award, but i'd be lying if i tell you right now that pac's drive alone could've swayed maybe one or two writers' opinions.

It could easily have been Floyd. Two things hurt him. He basically took 2003-05 off. His competition was bad in that period; when the best fighter you fight in a span of three years and six fights is Corley, something went wrong. It was the worst run any HBO fighter was allowed to get away with since either Roy's Super Middle reign or Oscar's protected period between Pernell and Ike. The retirement hurt as well, taking him out of the game long enough to let Pacquiao polish his resume. Had Floyd been active, he likely ends up with a Cotto or Mosley after the Oscar rematch, locking Pacquiao out below 147.