Fighter of the Decade????

[gqjohnb]

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.

I agree that was a very good win but I felt he lost personally lol but its a win against a great so there you go. You make some very good arguments here though. When you look towards the entire body of work I would still give it to floyd but your arguments are merited and I imagine was the BWAA's reasoning on giving it to manny.

[gqjohnb]

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.

LOL this guy

[crold1]

I agree that was a very good win but I felt he lost personally lol but its a win against a great so there you go. You make some very good arguments here though. When you look towards the entire body of work I would still give it to floyd but your arguments are merited and I imagine was the BWAA's reasoning on giving it to manny.

In the end it may not matter what happened in recent awards. If they meet one day and Floyd wins (I think he would), then historians will inevitably re-evaluate this time period as Floyd's. Floyd gave away the immediate perception game as much as anything.

In the end, you have two fighters with great wins over good and great fighters in their time, both headed to the Hall with a bullet. Both have had dips in comp and peaks; for the first half of 2010, Mayweather will have the opponent advantage for the night.

[ummmid]

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.

yes, it wasn't just pbf's retirement that hurt his claim, outside factors were there as well, that and all those chain of events (cotto losing to marg, odlh refusing to fight marg, dlh and hatton not fighting, pac's upset of dlh) that helped propelled pac to the top.

simply put, pbf was extremely unlucky and wasn't bothered enough to not retire, and pac was extremely lucky and had the desire to reach for more.

if i were religious, i prolly would have called it divine intervention.

[ummmid]

I agree that was a very good win but I felt he lost personally lol but its a win against a great so there you go. You make some very good arguments here though. When you look towards the entire body of work I would still give it to floyd but your arguments are merited and I imagine was the BWAA's reasoning on giving it to manny.

yeah you made some great points as well. truthfully, before pac fought dlh, i swear i would have bet my life savings that pbf gets fighter of the decade.

[gqjohnb]

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

IMO the corrales, DLH, castillo, and probably even hernandez were greater wins than either of the moralez wins but Barrera I agree is a more meaningful win than any of floyds and as far as JMM winning I looked at the fight and felt Marquez won enough rounds to overcome the KD's in the first round of the first fight so personally I don't view the scorecards as a booster for my argument. The second fight was a close victory for JMM as well IMO so with that being said I see that win as very good as opposed to great.

[gqjohnb]

In the end it may not matter what happened in recent awards. If they meet one day and Floyd wins (I think he would), then historians will inevitably re-evaluate this time period as Floyd's. Floyd gave away the immediate perception game as much as anything.

In the end, you have two fighters with great wins over good and great fighters in their time, both headed to the Hall with a bullet. Both have had dips in comp and peaks; for the first half of 2010, Mayweather will have the opponent advantage for the night.

I agree whole-heartedly with the in bold statement.

[crold1]

IMO the corrales, DLH, castillo, and probably even hernandez were greater wins than either of the moralez wins but Barrera I agree is a more meaningful win than any of floyds and as far as JMM winning I looked at the fight and felt Marquez won enough rounds to overcome the KD's in the first round of the first fight so personally I don't view the scorecards as a booster for my argument. The second fight was a close victory for JMM as well IMO so with that being said I see that win as very good as opposed to great.

The DLH win wasn't better than Morales II. DLH-Mayweather was a pedestrian outing from Floyd, a fundamentally sound, no risks performance. Pacquiao-Morales II sometimes gets overlooked but was a good fight. Morales wasn't shot; he was competing and in the fight until Manny found his right and a body attack and beat it out of Terible. It wasn't just that he beat him; he stopped a guy whose will was as awesome as any fighter I've ever seen.

[pasawayako]

after the 1st JMM fight, I think pacquiao fought like 7 -8 times without facing the top contender of the division he was in....

lol, after 2nd castillo fight in 2002 floy never fought any top contender for 8years.

[WhoreUs]

IMO the corrales, DLH, castillo, and probably even hernandez were greater wins than either of the moralez wins but Barrera I agree is a more meaningful win than any of floyds and as far as JMM winning I looked at the fight and felt Marquez won enough rounds to overcome the KD's in the first round of the first fight so personally I don't view the scorecards as a booster for my argument. The second fight was a close victory for JMM as well IMO so with that being said I see that win as very good as opposed to great.

the Corrales win was great as Floyd sonned a monster in Chico
the Castillo wins were good, not great
1st time, controversy or not, he won the lineal LW title
rematch wasn't the ownage some make it out to be in hindsight
the relevance of it was cleaning up the mess of the 1st fight
the DLH win was good, not great
DLH was a part time fighter, and yes, Pac's win on DLH was only good not great too
the Hernandez win was great
match those highlight wins, Hernandez/Chico/DLH against MAB 1/Morales 2/JMM 2
Pac killed MAB when many didn't even know him yet
Pac avenged a loss by coming back halfway through to KO a man who'd never been stopped before
I buy Erik being shot in 3, but not in 2
and Pac edged his natural foil in JMM with a KD in a dead even fight for a lineal title