How can this equate to "FIGHTER OF THE DECADE"?

[-MAKAVELLI-]

tyde ****ed up the quote string

[F l i c k e r]

I don't think Pacquiao deserved fighter of the 'decade'. Why? Because 3 years of doing great, doesn't equate 10 years of work.

That's why I think it's sad that Floyd didn't win it. Even Hopkins makes a better claim to fighter of the 'decade' than Pacquiao.

Ten years of work, Floyd was champion for majority of those years. He was ranked p4p top 10, 1 year after going pro and stayed top 10 until he retired.

Pacquiao wasn't even looked at until 03-04.... 10 years goes back to 99. What was Floyd doing in 99 compared to Pacquiao? Exactly.

Pacquiao won the fighter of the decade based on 3-4 years. So, it's popularity contest basically because 3 =//= 10. It's the Kevin Durant situation. Durant obviously had the stronger claim to MVP, yet Lebron James won the MVP.

No nuthuggery here, just stating the obvious. In 10 years, Floyd was doing much more than Pacquiao. It's his fault tho, he did retire, he should have just taken a break/layoff.

[andrew14]

this will never end....

[STRUGG]

and i answered that i am no alt. people who spend their time using multiple browsers have no life. since you came up with an answer like that i assume you do that and have your set of alts. congratulations.

you assume wrong.............doesnt mean if i know about it i use it..........typical ***** logic right there..............................

[jrosales13]

name any fighter that has come back, at any sort of resemblance to themselves, after being KTFO, at any weight.....

What do you mean by this? Because, it does seem to easy for me.

[jrosales13]

I don't think Pacquiao deserved fighter of the 'decade'. Why? Because 3 years of doing great, doesn't equate 10 years of work.

That's why I think it's sad that Floyd didn't win it. Even Hopkins makes a better claim to fighter of the 'decade' than Pacquiao.

Ten years of work, Floyd was champion for majority of those years. He was ranked p4p top 10, 1 year after going pro and stayed top 10 until he retired.

Pacquiao wasn't even looked at until 03-04.... 10 years goes back to 99. What was Floyd doing in 99 compared to Pacquiao? Exactly.

Pacquiao won the fighter of the decade based on 3-4 years. So, it's popularity contest basically because 3 =//= 10. It's the Kevin Durant situation. Durant obviously had the stronger claim to MVP, yet Lebron James won the MVP.

No nuthuggery here, just stating the obvious. In 10 years, Floyd was doing much more than Pacquiao. It's his fault tho, he did retire, he should have just taken a break/layoff.

That right there seems so misinformed. That is the biggest misconception around here. Pac has been putting in work since 2001;.

[Bee Keepz]

I don't think Pacquiao deserved fighter of the 'decade'. Why? Because 3 years of doing great, doesn't equate 10 years of work.

That's why I think it's sad that Floyd didn't win it. Even Hopkins makes a better claim to fighter of the 'decade' than Pacquiao.

Ten years of work, Floyd was champion for majority of those years. He was ranked p4p top 10, 1 year after going pro and stayed top 10 until he retired.

Pacquiao wasn't even looked at until 03-04.... 10 years goes back to 99. What was Floyd doing in 99 compared to Pacquiao? Exactly.

Pacquiao won the fighter of the decade based on 3-4 years. So, it's popularity contest basically because 3 =//= 10. It's the Kevin Durant situation. Durant obviously had the stronger claim to MVP, yet Lebron James won the MVP.

No nuthuggery here, just stating the obvious. In 10 years, Floyd was doing much more than Pacquiao. It's his fault tho, he did retire, he should have just taken a break/layoff.

He was a flyweight champ and ten years later beat top a notch welter in Cotto.

[jrosales13]

tyde ****ed up the quote string

I know right...

But, he tries though just like the Magics.

[Shadows]

Pacquiao wasn't even looked at until 03-04.... 10 years goes back to 99. What was Floyd doing in 99 compared to Pacquiao? Exactly.

Sorry Flick, but what does 1999 have to do with the decade that just ended?

[-MAKAVELLI-]

I don't think Pacquiao deserved fighter of the 'decade'. Why? Because 3 years of doing great, doesn't equate 10 years of work.

That's why I think it's sad that Floyd didn't win it. Even Hopkins makes a better claim to fighter of the 'decade' than Pacquiao.

Ten years of work, Floyd was champion for majority of those years. He was ranked p4p top 10, 1 year after going pro and stayed top 10 until he retired.

Pacquiao wasn't even looked at until 03-04.... 10 years goes back to 99. What was Floyd doing in 99 compared to Pacquiao? Exactly.

Pacquiao won the fighter of the decade based on 3-4 years. So, it's popularity contest basically because 3 =//= 10. It's the Kevin Durant situation. Durant obviously had the stronger claim to MVP, yet Lebron James won the MVP.

No nuthuggery here, just stating the obvious. In 10 years, Floyd was doing much more than Pacquiao. It's his fault tho, he did retire, he should have just taken a break/layoff.

in 1999, he was already a flyweight champ...