Tweet
Far too many posts on here arguing about who should be FOTD, going back and forth over the same names, claiming x did this which was better than y. It is just boring and in all honesty, a poor reflection of the previous ten years. Let us look at why -
In previous decades, where FOTD discussion became prominent, you could pick out the bets fighters and they would ALL have an argument of winning the award, names such as Pacquiao, Hopkins, Mayweather, Oscar, Barrera, Morales, Roy Jones, Lennox Lewis, Evander Holyfield, Ray Leonard, Roberto Duran and so on and so forth.
In the last ten years, there are far more negatives to discuss regarding the nominees and more missed fights to speak of than positives and the big fights we wanted.
Let us look at some of the names being repeatedly mentioned -
Pacquiao: Started the decade very well and had one of the atg fights with Marquez...but it is also important to remember some of his legitimate losses. That KO, that farce against Mayweather and imo the correct loss to Horn. None of those losses were avenged and as impressive as it has been to see him regain the ww crown, his career has been topsy turvy. He may have the best claim when we start looking at the others.
Mayweather: A man who has not fought at the highest level of the sport for 5 years is supposed to be FOTD? He had a terrific win over Cotto and Pacquiao but he fought c level slugger Maidana twice, spent time fighting the likes of Ortiz and Guerrero which is a joke and actively avoided taking the Pacquiao fight early in the decade. Instead of talking about the ifs and buts...we should have been talking about a Pacquiao trilogy or fights against the likes of Martinez and Canelo at proper weights. More questions than answers.
Alvarez: The man who created a division all his own, a man who many believe did not believe Trout, let alone Lara, Cotto and GGG on two occasions. His ambition is something to be proud of but his playing with weights, belts and the fact that judges seem to have him six rounds up is a major, major problem and one of the most important corruption debates the sport needs to have. Let's not even begin about his fight Kovalev.
Other names pose just as many questions and answers, men who promised much but repeatedly failed to deliver the fights we wanted/needed (Ward, Kovalev, Stevenson, all the guys at light middle, Wilder, Fury...this goes on and on).
The last decade has done more damage to boxing viewership in the US and mainstream appeal than any other in its long and once illustrious history. We should not be awarding that.
In previous decades, where FOTD discussion became prominent, you could pick out the bets fighters and they would ALL have an argument of winning the award, names such as Pacquiao, Hopkins, Mayweather, Oscar, Barrera, Morales, Roy Jones, Lennox Lewis, Evander Holyfield, Ray Leonard, Roberto Duran and so on and so forth.
In the last ten years, there are far more negatives to discuss regarding the nominees and more missed fights to speak of than positives and the big fights we wanted.
Let us look at some of the names being repeatedly mentioned -
Pacquiao: Started the decade very well and had one of the atg fights with Marquez...but it is also important to remember some of his legitimate losses. That KO, that farce against Mayweather and imo the correct loss to Horn. None of those losses were avenged and as impressive as it has been to see him regain the ww crown, his career has been topsy turvy. He may have the best claim when we start looking at the others.
Mayweather: A man who has not fought at the highest level of the sport for 5 years is supposed to be FOTD? He had a terrific win over Cotto and Pacquiao but he fought c level slugger Maidana twice, spent time fighting the likes of Ortiz and Guerrero which is a joke and actively avoided taking the Pacquiao fight early in the decade. Instead of talking about the ifs and buts...we should have been talking about a Pacquiao trilogy or fights against the likes of Martinez and Canelo at proper weights. More questions than answers.
Alvarez: The man who created a division all his own, a man who many believe did not believe Trout, let alone Lara, Cotto and GGG on two occasions. His ambition is something to be proud of but his playing with weights, belts and the fact that judges seem to have him six rounds up is a major, major problem and one of the most important corruption debates the sport needs to have. Let's not even begin about his fight Kovalev.
Other names pose just as many questions and answers, men who promised much but repeatedly failed to deliver the fights we wanted/needed (Ward, Kovalev, Stevenson, all the guys at light middle, Wilder, Fury...this goes on and on).
The last decade has done more damage to boxing viewership in the US and mainstream appeal than any other in its long and once illustrious history. We should not be awarding that.
Comment