Why didnt Floyd get Fighter of the Decade?

[UmissUpay]

1. self preservation = vacations

2. cherrypicker at its best

[BoxingGenius27]

Not fighting for most of the last two years, along with a single fight in 2004, and an overall uugh run from 03-05 generally had a lot to do with it. Manny won FOTY three times in the last five years of the decade. Floyd had one over the whole ten years.

It doesn't really matter. If they ever fight, and Floyd wins, retrospective analysis of the decade will say Floyd was the guy. Contemporary assessments are often trumped by hindsight. Have to wait for it all to play out.

How many times did Manny win FOTY after Floyd retired?

Also, what do you think about Manny being FOTY while Floyd was ranked higher than him in the P4P ranks?

It sounds like Manny should've won "Most Exciting Fighter of The Decade", not FOTD.

[crold1]

How many times did Manny win FOTY after Floyd retired?

Also, what do you think about Manny being FOTY while Floyd was ranked higher than him in the P4P ranks?

It sounds like Manny should've won "Most Exciting Fighter of The Decade", not FOTD.

Who gives a crap about P4P relative to weighing a single year? In 2006, he became the first man to stop Morales, avenged a loss doing so, and then did it again earlier. Both beat a guy coming off a loss to start the year; one beat a HOFer and the other beat Judah. Larios was coming up in weight but was a better fighter generally than Baldomir and that was the stay busy night. 2006 was a no-brainer and if excitement was a factor...hey, cool. Being exciting is part of catching attention. That was also the year where there started to be a debate about the two. Pacquiao made a huge move in 06.

Roy was rated number one by most the years he fought Harmon, Gonzalez, Kelly, and Woods. Was he FOTY those years?

Not so much.

On the other question, Manny won only one of his three during years where Floyd was inactive.

The funny thing is how little it matters. No one used to give a crap about things like FOTD. At the end of the 80s, lots of people were all "Tyson FOTD". Then the 90s happened and almost everyone was back to, "Oh, yeah, Leonard. Whoops."

P4P after Tyson-Douglas was Chavez, Taylor, Nunn. Whitaker proved better than all of them and Taylor and Nunn won't even make the Hall ballot. Into the 1970s, most historical ratings didn't have Ezzard Charles in the top ten at Light Heavyweight and had Moore at 1.

Now, he is almost universally rated as #1. Paying attention to things like the Moore-Charles results by people less emotionally tied to the Mongoose was a big reason.

If, at the end of their careers, Floyd is seen as the better fighter (a distinct possibility), future historical analysis will reflect that.

[BoxingGenius27]

Who gives a crap about P4P relative to weighing a single year? In 2006, he became the first man to stop Morales, avenged a loss doing so, and then did it again earlier. Both beat a guy coming off a loss to start the year; one beat a HOFer and the other beat Judah. Larios was coming up in weight but was a better fighter generally than Baldomir and that was the stay busy night. 2006 was a no-brainer and if excitement was a factor...hey, cool. Being exciting is part of catching attention. That was also the year where there started to be a debate about the two. Pacquiao made a huge move in 06.

Roy was rated number one by most the years he fought Harmon, Gonzalez, Kelly, and Woods. Was he FOTY those years?

Not so much.

On the other question, Manny won only one of his three during years where Floyd was inactive.

You create the rankings and you're asking what does rankings mean for the year?

So you don't think Ring Magazine would've acknowledged Pac as the P4P better fighter in 2006, if his status "at the time" didn't deserve it? Obviously Floyd was doing something right.

That's like you right now. If BS asked you to do P4P rankings for the year, you're telling me that you'll put Floyd at #1, even if Manny's resume for that year says he should be #1?

I think we're using too much hindsight 20/20 here and forgetting "at the time". What happen was, Manny had lost in 2004 and although he made up for his loss in 06, it still wasn't enough to be considered the better overall fighter or have the better resume against Mayweather "at the time". I can bump any article you like from 2006 to back my claim. Manny didn't start being considered better than Floyd for the decade until he beat Ricky Hatton in 2009. That means, according to mainstream media, Floyd was the better fighter until 2009.

I just find it odd that you will tell me rankings don't mean much, considering that's what you do. If rankings don't mean much, then what does FOTD mean?

[UmissUpay]

floyd been cherrypicking for 2 decades where have u been dude

[BoxingGenius27]

On the other question, Manny won only one of his three during years where Floyd was inactive.

.

FYI, Manny won it once while Floyd was active and twice while Floyd was retired. Floyd retired in 2008.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_Magazine_fighters_of_the_year#Fighters_of_the_Year_by_decade

[crold1]

You create the rankings and you're asking what does rankings mean for the year?

So you don't think Ring Magazine would've acknowledged Pac as the P4P better fighter in 2006, if his status "at the time" didn't deserve it? Obviously Floyd was doing something right.

That's like you right now. If BS asked you to do P4P rankings for the year, you're telling me that you'll put Floyd at #1, even if Manny's resume for that year says he should be #1?

I think we're using too much hindsight 20/20 here and forgetting "at the time". What happen was, Manny had lost in 2004 and although he made up for his loss in 06, it still wasn't enough to be considered the better overall fighter or have the better resume against Mayweather "at the time". I can bump any article you like from 2006 to back my claim. Manny didn't start being considered better than Floyd for the decade until he beat Ricky Hatton in 2009. That means, according to mainstream media, Floyd was the better fighter until 2009.

I just find it odd that you will tell me rankings don't mean much, considering that's what you do. If rankings don't mean much, then what does FOTD mean?

That's like you right now.

They're done for fun and to foster debate. The only rankings I care about are divisions and the stuff that allows for full career historical assessments. Everything else is a parlor game subject to the new things we learn about certain fighters with the passage of time.

I don't lose a wink of sleep over whether Pac or May could beat Hopkins 'if they were all the same size.' Like many, I offer a perspective based on how I view their career accomplishments against their activity, quality of foe, and recent action. I've flipped Manny and Floyd back and forth since late 2006 multiple times. They are that close IMO.

Perspectives change all the time. After 2009, more people looked at the overall decade, weighed who beat who, and were more impressed overall with Pacquiao. It's well worth debating but P4P is based on impression that can change on a dime. Ring worried that Holy would die against Tyson and then had him as #3 all-time at Heavy after the fight. It happens. Just because Floyd was seen as 'P4P' better in 2006 doesn't mean he was the FOTY THAT year. This is a silly argument. How many guys get voted FOTY and aren't seen as the best overall fighter in the game 'at the time.' Glen Johnson, James Toney, and Vernon Forrest...none were ranked higher than Floyd the year they won their honors either.

Floyd wasn't deemed the FOTY in any of those years because his year wasn't better. That's why we measure whole careers AT THE END.

[crold1]

FYI, Manny won it once while Floyd was active and twice while Floyd was retired. Floyd retired in 2008.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_Ma...Year_by_decade

And was back in the ring in 2009 and won a fight.

[-Spinal-]

In the year Floyd didn't fight in the last decade, 2008, the guy who won FOTD beat David Diaz the worst champion in the division, then moved up and beat a weight drained Oscar for a big money fight, which Floyd had already done in his own weight class a year and a half prior. All of this was right after winning a questionable decision over Marquez. Then his wins over Cotto and Hatton in 2009 sealed the deal, while Floyd only fought the LW Juan Manuel Marquez. The whole weight jumping was blown out of proportion, and that basically won him the FOTD.

Floyd basically did nothing from 2008 to 2009. If he had fought at least 3-4 times through that span against top fighters, he could have easily won it. But he didn't, it's his fault. Floyd is still the best fighter of the 2000 decade in my eyes, despite missing those years. Hopkins is a close second. Pacquiao did nothing impressive in my eyes in the early part of the decade aside form beating Barrera and that's it. It was like a guy winning for 10 rounds, then cruises through the championship rounds so the judges take the whole fight away from him. That's how I see Mayweather-Pacquiao and the FOTD award. Pac simply won it because Floyd did nothing for those last 2 years and Pac finished those two years off "strong".

[tibbar]

He should have. Titles in multiple divisions, great resume, never lost, only came close to losing once, carried the 24/7 series, was a part of the biggest fight in the history of boxing.

A case can certainly be made.