Why didnt Floyd get Fighter of the Decade?

[BoxingGenius27]

They're done for fun and to foster debate. The only rankings I care about are divisions. 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.

Cliff, your basing everything on FOTY.

If that's the case, Holyfield won FOTY twice in the 90's, while Roy won it once. Why do you think Roy was still FOTD? Because FOTY means nothing. It's all about who was considered the better fighter throughout the decade. Roy was considered the better P4P fighter than Holyfield in the 90's. FOTY had nothing to do with it.

Secondly, Mayweather fought once between 2008-2009. Manny fought like 4 times. This is why Manny won FOTY in 2008 as well as 2009.

[PAC-BOY]

heheheheeeee Floyds an over rated bum! THE END!

And bums like him dont ever make fighter of decade. He had his shot....and failed!

[BoxingGenius27]

@ Cliff Rold

Show me 6 years in the 2000's that Manny was a better fighter than Mayweather. I'll even give you 2008 and 2009.

Show me the other 4 years that won Manny 6 out of the 10 years over Floyd making him fighter of the decade?

I'll wait.

[crold1]

Cliff, your basing everything on FOTY.

If that's the case, Holyfield won FOTY twice in the 90's, while Roy won it once. Why do you think Roy was still FOTD? Because FOTY means nothing. It's all about who was considered the better fighter throughout the decade. Roy was considered the better P4P fighter than Holyfield in the 90's. FOTY had nothing to do with it.

Secondly, Mayweather fought once between 2008-2009. Manny fought like 4 times. This is why Manny won FOTY in 2008 as well as 2009.

I'm not basing everything on that. I cited it as a factor in how the various voting went.

Here's the deal: P4P in contemporary terms should never be taken too serious because it is a constant shell game of existing impression versus changing impression. Guys can be near the top for years based on what they did already while someone else is building their docket. In 2003, Pacquiao beat Barrera and drew with Marquez in blazing fashion. Floyd had less than stellar years in 03 and 04 but his public impression lead was so huge he remained viewed as 'better.' By decade's end, for some (and I was one), the strong close for Pacquiao along with a reassessment of what came before, pushed him over. That Floyd was believed better until more evidence came in isn't a big deal.

If Floyd and he ever fight, and Pac gets thrashed, lots of folks will go 'what were we thinking' or just shrug and re-evaluate again. You weigh the evidence from moment to moment until all the evidence is in.

FYI...Roy was never universally considered that. he lost the BWAA voting to Holy, Hauser pitched a fit, and then they revoted. Ring said Whitaker (I concur).

[Larry the boss]

caused he is so damn slick he evaded the award

[SkillspayBills]

He should have been, simple as that. That being said Pac also deserved to be because he had a great decade and is a ATG. That being said, it was a bit of a popularity contest.

[BoxingGenius27]

. Just because Floyd was seen as 'P4P' better in 2006 doesn't mean he was the FOTY THAT year. .

When I think of Fighter of the Decade, I think of a fighter that was considered the best fighter for the majority of 10 years.

Even if I gave you 2006, which Manny wasn't, but let's say I did.

What about the other 5 years Floyd was considered the better fighter?

What about 2007 when Floyd won FOTY. That's 6 years right there where Floyd was the better fighter. We're not even counting 2010.

Cliff, that's like 7 years right there.

You're saying Manny got FOTD because of 2006, 2008, 2009?

[crold1]

@ Cliff Rold

Show me 6 years in the 2000's that Manny was a better fighter than Mayweather. I'll even give you 2008 and 2009.

Show me the other 4 years that won Manny 6 out of the 10 years over Floyd making him fighter of the decade?

I'll wait.

Why six? A decade is ten years. Who had the overall better ten; I favor Manny but it was no whitewash. I've done this before. If we're just talking about who beat who in any given year, 2000 is pretty much a wash (Manny knocked off two 0's with some hassle from Hussein while Floyd had a solid over Vargas and got a good fight from Augustus in contract strained year). Floyd had better years in 01, 02, 05, and 07. Manny had better years in 03, 04, 06, 08 and 09. That's a slight year's total for Manny but I could give Floyd 2000 for an even call. He took a whole year and a half off and 2000 and 2005 were not notable years; 05 flat ****** comp wise but he won and Manny lost.

[-Spinal-]

@ Cliff Rold

Show me 6 years in the 2000's that Manny was a better fighter than Mayweather. I'll even give you 2008 and 2009.

Show me the other 4 years that won Manny 6 out of the 10 years over Floyd making him fighter of the decade?

I'll wait.

Hopkins had a better case of winning the FOTD over Pacquiao, and IMO Mayweather had an equal case of winning it than Hopkins.

Tarver[175 Man to beat, Hopkins was underdog], Winky[one of the most feared fighters at the time], Trinidad[undefeated, Hopkins was underdog], De La Hoya top 10 MW, Pavlik[undefeated, Hopkins was underdog], Joppy a good top Middleweight at the time.

Three competitive fights with undefeated fighters Jermain Taylor and Joe Calzaghe, that some feel Hopkins won 1 of those 3, others feel he won two of 3, and it's even arguable that he should have gotten the nod in all 3[though I disagree].

Floyd Mayweather and Bernard Hopkins are the two real fighters of the decade of 2000, not Manny Pacquiao. But the hype that Pacquiao created in 08 and 09, won him the FOTD.

But if you want me to be completely honest, no bias, the answer is actually some one who people don't make much of an argument for winning the FOTD...and it's Bernard Hopkins. That would have been my pick, and honestly idc if i'm in the minority. But of Pac and May, I say May.

[BoxingGenius27]

FYI...Roy was never universally considered that. he lost the BWAA voting to Holy, Hauser pitched a fit, and then they revoted. Ring said Whitaker (I concur).

Great, you just proved my point even further how FOTY doesn't mean anything. Whitaker never even won FOTY in the 90's, but you're saying he was FOTD?

That said, why even bring up the point about Manny winning FOTY 3 times to Floyd's 1, when you just proved it means nothing?

Cliff, I can dig up some of your articles from the 2000's and willing to bet you didn't consider Manny an overall better fighter than Floyd until 2009. That makes 8 years of Floyd being better.