Fighter of the decade

again, Pacquiao is the much smaller guy

 

Much smaller than a guy who was coming off a knockout loss two divisions below where he fought Pacquiao?

 

No he wasn't. He was considered a tune-up for Pacquiao, who was biding time between fights 2 and 3 with Morales. Pacquiao was already comfortable at 130 (his fourth fight in if I remember correctly), while Larios was already on the downside and, as Mitchell noted, was moving up two weight classes.

This same Larios had people begging for his retirement a year later after Linares beat the crap outta him (not to mention a post-fight test revealing a subdural hematoma). And there was no "bigger fighter" about it - all he had was height. At best a 2" height advantage, which isn't an advantage at all when you fight the way Larios does.

 

Messageboard rule #17, never let facts get in the way of opinion:nono:

 

Oscar was clearly not the same in the Mayweather fight as he was in the Pac-Man fight.

 

::::

 

Because he was STILL a Jr. Lightweight when the Year 2000 Began...He PUMMELED Diego Corrales (his BIGGEST Rival @ 130 & a Guy who was FAVORED to Beat him) N 2001, then Went On to Win Titles from 135 to 154....CLEARLY, Floyd Mayweather BELONGS N this Discussion...

Posters SHOULDN'T Allow their Ill Will Towards Floyd to DIMINISH what he's Accomplished this Decade...


REED:nono:

 

If Floyd didn't retire, I think there's no doubt he'd be the clear cut fighter of the decade. The problem is that if he never comes back, he'll have lost 3 years. If Manny doesn't retire before 2010, I think he'll be comfortably named the fighter of the decade, a bit by default though because it's obvious that a guy with Floyd's abilities can still accomplish a lot at 30 years old...

 

i am pretty sure that PBF was a favorite over Corrales

 

Hopkins, and clear over Pac who is clear over whoever else you want to place second IMHO.

Much as there is plenty to hate in Bhop, he is 43 and still beating the holy shit out of previously undefeated guys who rule their division without much query, stepping through weights and fighting elite guys and either beating them (Winky, Tarver, Pavlik) or giving them hell (Calzaghe, Taylor).

Manny is a beast, and one of my top three favourite fighters to watch right now, but he trails Bhop historically. And then some...

MTF

 

He was a slight favourite. Not to many people figued Floyd would put on a clinic and whup his ass thats for sure.

 

Baldomir, Judah, Chavez and Hernandez were all significantly more important wins for Floyd that Larios was for Pacquiao at the time they fought.

 

Floyd was a favourite over Chico.

But many people did think Chico would win, including me. At that point, Floyd inevitably had a Mayweather jaw in many people's eyes.

And Manny has to be fighter of the decade, just has to be, unless he gets KO'd by Hatton in 1 round.

What he has done, as an obscure former flyweight, is downright incredible. He has fought all comers across a fuck load of weights, and delivered many a beat down, including perhaps his most important victory over Space Money's conqueror, where everybody sat up and took notice.

And to top it off, became the first person to deliver a one sided beating to De La Lovesongs basically as a 130 pound fighter.

 

the odds for mayweather -corrales were pretty much even. though mayweather closed as a slight favorite

 

Morales is top 5.

 

Look,... had Calzaghe pulled up big draws that were half his size fought in a division he never ever belonged in,.. then maybe he could be considered,...- high work-rates aren't clever or 'crafty' or even entertaining.. all Calzaghe did was defeat fighters who proved they performed at thier optimum peaks at the weights inwhich he fought them, and reigned at the top of his division for a record amount of time, yeah, yeah yeah, but Hopkins did that first,... I mean,..come on something must have been impressively done, if Hopkins can lose twice in a row and be granted immunity like it never, ever happenned?... would Calzaghe ever be granted immunity?... no... ..and the peoples vote is all that matters, I think it's because Hopkins revolutionised the way we view boxing values and achievements, we've grown to love things such as ruthless and excessive fouling, extreme size differentials, pointless but self serving catch-weights, prolonged failure to engage in cooperation with an allied referee in getting your opponent to walk into the timing fringe of your pot-shots, clinches and headbutts, and rolling around on the ground crying like a fucking disgraceful bitch when you've got no answers left against a superior opponent who is almost 3/4's of your own size. Calzaghe also looked like garbage against Hopkins, where as Hopkins never has,..it should also be pointed out that Calzaghe is European and white, as Hopkins himself has said before, and I think that's a good point as to why he'll never be liked or respected as a great fighter in the American community, I'm sorry ''but,.. it just aint supposed to happen where I'm from" ....as our beloved Hopkins has also said.

 

I still wouldn't think of Mayweather as the fighter of the decade, based on the 7 years he was active for. He didn't have the gigantic wins. He never really did.

 

Castillo, Corrales and Hatton are pretty big wins IMO. Especially Corrales and Hatton, the Castillo fights were big wins in hindsight, after the Johnston fights I wasn't convinced yet that he was a top fighter (even though the Bazan KO was impressive).

 

They are not big wins considering that many people thought Castillo won the first one, and the second one was hardly dominant.

Corrales was probably Floyd's best win and best performance, but Chico was made to order for Floyd.

Floyd has never had a big win since then.

And no hatton was not a big win. A decent win but not a big win. Everybody knew hatton wasn't worth much at 147, and the overwhelming majority picked Floyd to win. Most didn't give hatton much of a chance, even in England.

 

when hattton beats pacquaio some of you will change your minds, even though you shouldn't.

 

Well, it was a close fight but a win is a win, and I don't see you making a big deal of the fact that many people also thought Marquez won at least one fight against Pacquiao. And Mayweather won the second fight pretty convincingly, even though it wasn't an inspiring performance.

And I don't think the fact that Corrales style played into Floyd's hands diminish the quality of this win, I think it's a bit dishonest to try to diminish the win using that argument. In fact, one could say that Barrera was made to
order for Pac, given how easily he dominated him, but I think that's a load of crap.

And we'll also have to disagree about the Hatton fight, it was a big win.

 

Good Post...

As for the Hatton Point, that was Quite CLEARLY a "Big Win" for Floyd...Hatton was NO WORSE than Top 5 Lb for Lb & Floyd's No More of a TRUE Welter than Hatton Is...Besides that, Floyd was only SLIGHTLY Favored here @ Fightbeat...The Margin was 60-40 @ Most...No Doubt, Hatton was a BIG Win...


REED:hammert:

 

Hatton was NOT a big win. Chico was a much better win, as was Castillo, shit even the lackluster win over Oscar.

He may have been the first guy to beat Hatton, but lest we not forget Baron, Hatton was considered far less significant as a 147 pounder. A lot of people thought Collazo beat Hatton.

Floyd is one of the best fighters of the 2000's, but no way is he fighter of the decade. Hopkins also gets a clear nod over Floyd. Bigger wins, more dominant wins.

 

If "many people thought Castillo won the first one" is the standard for Mayweather, then apply the same standard to both of Pacquiao's fights against Marquez.

And explain how, because there weren't "many people" who thought Castillo won the second one, it's not a big win. A win has to be dominant? It can't just be clear?

And if Hatton wasn't a big win because of the weight, then why shouldn't the same be said of Morales because of his age? It's not like weight is the only thing that can diminish a fighter.

 

Morales is not as big a win for Pacman as Barrera or Marquez I agree. And I thought Pacman won the first fight clear as day, but the second could well have been scored for Marquez, I wouldn't have complained.

The difference is, Marquez is a much better fighter than Castillo.

 

Yeah, but now you're shifting from "many people thought" to what you thought.

Many people thought Marquez won both fights...so no matter how much better you consider Marquez than Castillo, many people don't think he beat him, in either fight.

Mayweather has no losses in this decade, the closest - and only - questionable one there is, is a decision against Castillo...who is one of the best lightweights of this decade, and Mayweather did beat him in the rematch.

 

Actually the majority vote is they are split 1 and 1, not always with the same fights.

I know some people who think Pacman lost the first one and won the second. I think that's crazy, but that's the way it is.

It's better to split 2 fights with Marquez than Castillo.

I've never been a huge fan of gay Marquez, but he is an incredible fighter, truly one of the best and most skilled fighters in the world.

 

He didn't slpit them, he's 2-0. There's debate about one of the decisions, that doesn't mean he lost to him, he also clearly beat Castillo in the rematch.

That's not something Pacquiao has done...as even you, suggest "the majority vote is they are split 1 and 1, not always with the same fights." Even you say there's differing opinions about both decisions.

Castillo has wins over Johnston, Corrales, Casamayor, and fought Mayweather tougher than anyone in his career...he's an elite lightweight.

 

Well if you're only going by the record books, then he is 1-0-1 against Marquez, with no losses either.

Floyd's close, dull win over Oscar isn't looking so hot now either, after Pacquiao battering him from pillar to post in one of the most one sided big fights of the last decade.

By the way, I never said Castillo wasn't an elite lightweight, just that Marquez is better, which is true. Marquez is amongst the elite of the elite.

 

I mentioned the record books because you're trying to equate the two.

Mayweather's record book has a "0" in the loss column.

Pacquiao's doesn't.

You're trying to argue that opinion is he deserves one.

Pacquio is 1-0-1 against Marquez, but both results are debatable. That's simply no the case with Mayweather-Castillo, because there isn't much debate about the rematch.

Pacquiao, as of this moment, has no clear wins over Marquez.