Why didnt Floyd get Fighter of the Decade?

[BoxingGenius27]

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.

Cliff, Manny lost in 2004, how in the world did he have a better year than Floyd Mayweather Jr?

[crold1]

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.

Nope. You'll see I started to ponder whether Manny was better in 2006. I was quoted on it by Bill Detloff in Ring Mag. I also had Lorenzo Parra, who was on a stellar, road warrior run, above Floyd for a minute that year because I was so disgusted watching a genius waste three years from 03-05 and then take Judah off a loss. That was really ******. I don't get that carried away anymore. My 20s had some rash writing.

If I'd been writing in 2001, I'd have probably had Floyd above Roy and Hopkins by the end of that year.

By the end of 07, back to Floyd #1 and so on. I almost switched them again last Fall. Could happen after I see their next fights.

Why not bring it up? It is an element in how they were regarded. I might not have weighed it that heavily as some, but it was weighed. So was activity. Manny was 10-0 from 06-09 while Floyd fought five times. That impacts impressions as well.

[crold1]

Cliff, Manny lost in 2004, how in the world did he have a better year than Floyd Mayweather Jr?

He lost to Morales in 05 in the last gasp of an ATG's prime. He drew with Marquez in 04 and scored a walkover knockout. Floyd fought once and won but the Marquez draw > Corley.

If you're going to debate the individual years, you might want to remember what happened in them.

[BoxingGenius27]

Nope. You'll see I started to ponder whether Manny was better in 2006. I was quoted on it by Bill Detloff in Ring Mag. I also had Lorenzo Parra, who was on a stellar, road warrior run, above Floyd for a minute that year because I was so disgusted watching a genius waste three years from 03-05 and then take Judah off a loss. That was really ******. I don't get that carried away anymore. My 20s had some rash writing.

If I'd been writing in 2001, I'd have probably had Floyd above Roy and Hopkins by the end of that year.

By the end of 07, back to Floyd #1 and so on. I almost switched them again last Fall. Could happen after I see their next fights.

Why not bring it up? It is an element in how they were regarded. I might not have weighed it that heavily as some, but it was weighed. So was activity. Manny was 10-0 from 06-09 while Floyd fought five times. That impacts impressions as well.

Ok Cliff, it's late tonight, but I'll dig up some of your old articles.

Pondering who's best is not saying Manny was better. If you were pondering at that time, it's because you thought Floyd was the better/ more proven fighter from 2000-2005 and Manny had a good year in 2006, so you considered it. That doesn't mean that you thought Manny was a better fighter for the decade in 2006, just that you thought he had a really good year. That makes 08 and 09.

3 years out of 10 (06,08 and 09) from your articles.

I will find your articles from 2001-2009 to prove my points.

[BoxingGenius27]

He lost to Morales in 05 in the last gasp of an ATG's prime. He drew with Marquez in 04 and scored a walkover knockout. Floyd fought once and won but the Marquez draw > Corley.

If you're going to debate the individual years, you might want to remember what happened in them.

Lol it's late

Even with that draw Cliff, you're still wrong.

I'll debate you on a clear head tomorrow and bump your own articles for proof.

[crold1]

Ok Cliff, it's late tonight, but I'll dig up some of your old articles.

Pondering who's best is not saying Manny was better. If you were pondering at that time, it's because you thought Floyd was the better/ more proven fighter from 2000-2005 and Manny had a good year in 2006, so you considered it. That doesn't mean that you thought Manny was a better fighter for the decade in 2006, just that you thought he had a really good year. That makes 08 and 09.

3 years out of 10 (06,08 and 09) from your articles.

I will find your articles from 2001-2009 to prove my points.

I don't have any articles prior to 2004. And I had Manny over Floyd by mid-year 2006.

[BoxingGenius27]

I don't have any articles prior to 2004. And I had Manny over Floyd by mid-year 2006.

Give me a few writer's names who you consider solid that wrote prior to 04 and I'll bump them.

At the end of the day Cliff, no matter how you cut it, Mayweather was considered the better fighter for at least 6-7 years out of the 10 by mainstream media.

There's only one way to win this debate and that's bump articles from the time (2000-2010).

[crold1]

Lol it's late

Even with that draw Cliff, you're still wrong.

I'll debate you on a clear head tomorrow and bump your own articles for proof.

I'm not wrong because I don't care if I thought Floyd was better until I started waffling in 2006. At the end of the decade, I laid out what each fighter had done, who they beat, start to finish, and thought Manny had a little better overall decade.

You disagree.

Cool on that.

I'm saying time may make it all moot anyways and we all get a kick out of seeing how impressions change over time.

The best you do is prove my opinion changed over time.

Duh.

And I won't be around much tomorrow so I probably won't see it. Just PM me. No need to keep going in circles.

Get some sleep. Or have another drink. I'm about to. Haha

[crold1]

Give me a few writer's names who you consider solid that wrote prior to 04 and I'll bump them.

At the end of the day Cliff, no matter how you cut it, Mayweather was considered the better fighter for at least 6-7 years out of the 10 by mainstream media.

And in 1975, Ring Mag had Jack O'Brien #1 all-time at 175 with Moore right behind him (thought it was Moore; just looked it up). Their all-time ratings shifted to Charles by 94 and 02, Moore still 2, O'Brien nowhere in sight.

Perspectives change with new evidence or re-evaluation of existing.

[SWEETSCIENCE100]

because the media don't like him, he should have been fighter of the decade and he should have a lot of "fighter of the year awards" but the media used pacquiao to kinda "stick it" to mayweather

100% agreed! Pure facts!