Fighters of the Decade!!

Purely your opinion....but based it more on impact and accomplishments in your opinion.

I want YOUR picks. It's not about who the Magazines or Sports writers picked.

This is my list:

1940s: Joe Louis
1950s: Ray Robinson
1960s: Muhammad Ali
1970s: Muhammad Ali (honorable mentions to Duran and Monzon)
1980s: Sugar Ray Leonard (Honorable mention to Mike Tyson)
1990s: Roy Jones Jnr (honorable mention to Oscar De La Hoya)
2000s: Floyd Mayweather Jnr (Honorable mention to Manny Pacquiao)

 

interesting lack of bias here.

 

wow
:doh:

 

Don't be ridiculous Aaron Jones. Race has nothing to do with it.

Who would you choose over Louis in the 40s? Who would you choose over Robinson in the 50s? Who would you chose over Ali in the 60s?

Them being black is irrelevant. They owned their respectiive decades. Let's see your list.

 

I'd have Manny over Floyd for the 2000s

 

2000s is all you have to offer?

 

Don't be ridiculous Stafford Attzs (if thats your real name, and if it is go bitchslap your parents)

Your black bias is neverending. Pointing it out is wasteful on my part, but its gotta be done when someoen says something as stupid as "In terms of impact and accomplishments Floyd Mayweather's 2000s were better than Manny Pacquiao's"

You gerrymander the results so that Ali would get chosen over Duran in the 70's, but then change criteria apparently for the past decade.

Similar thoughts on RJJ for the 90's.

Best boxer of the 90's? Hands down. But most relevant and most impact on boxing? Not a chance.

 

I would be tempted to substitute Duran for Ali in the 70s and/or Pacquaio for Mayweather, mostly because Mayweather was in semi-retirement for a reasonable stretch of the 00's...otherwise fine

 

No I'm just saying with your list, the rest I can all conceivably see. Roy was clearly fighter of the 90s and so on, but for 2000s I think Manny overtook Floyd. I'll do mine in a bit I'm just cooking some chicken.

 

:: Pretty funny I must admit.

I pick Mayweather over Pacquiao (and i can accept the contrary argument) because floyd dominated since before the start of the decade all the way to the end...and remained undefeated in that run.

Pacquiao started MID STREAM and lost to Morales and drew with Marquez in that run.

Mayweather is also the more famous name and still the bigger draw.

As for Roy Jones in the 90s..the should-have-been Olympic champion from 1988 beat Hopkins, Toney, Hill and beat everyone he faced in three divisions. De La Hoya is a close second though.

Ali over Duran? EASY for me. The 70s was all about Ali. "Fight of the Century", "Rumble in the Jungle", "thriller in manilla"...shiiit even beating Spinks for his third Title was far more talked about than anything Duran or Monzon did in the 70s. Hence my pick. Plus Ali fought and beat a higher stanard of competition consistentlyin that decade than anyone else.

 

Cool. :kidcool:

 

1 of these Days, Months or YEARS, U're Gonna Actually Make a POSITIVE Contribution to this Site...REED WON'T B Holding his Breath Though...



REED:hammert:

 

1940s: Joe Louis - ok
1950s: Ray Robinson - ok
1960s: Muhammad Ali - ok
1970s: Muhammad Ali (honorable mentions to Duran and Monzon) - no
1980s: Sugar Ray Leonard (Honorable mention to Mike Tyson) - ok
1990s: Roy Jones Jnr (honorable mention to Oscar De La Hoya) - ok
2000s: Floyd Mayweather Jnr (Honorable mention to Manny Pacquiao) - go to hell

 

WTF?!!!

Pacquiao was on the cover of Time Magazine !!!
Pacquiao is a world-wide phenom.
PBF is a crumb-snatching retiree.

 

"I pick Mayweather over Pacquiao (and i can accept the contrary argument) because floyd dominated since before the start of the decade all the way to the end...and remained undefeated in that run."

So how is Ray Robinson the fighter of the 50's and not Rocky Marciano?

"As for Roy Jones in the 90s..the should-have-been Olympic champion from 1988 beat Hopkins, Toney, Hill and beat everyone he faced in three divisions. De La Hoya is a close second though."

So the 1988 olympics, a Virgil Hill who lost to Thomas Hearns in 1991, a Bernard hopkins who wasn't even highly regarded until the 2000s and James Toney, a guy whose fights surrounding the RJJ fight include an immediate loss to Montel Griffin, and subsequent losses to Drake Thadzi and Griffin again, give RJJ the nod.

Which is it, relevance or record?

Because if its Relevance, there's no chance Mayweather or Roy are ahead of DLH/JCC or Pacquiao, much in the same way Ali would be a clear pick for the 60s and 70s and Louis for the 40s.

Manny was by far the most relevant fighter of the 2000s, by far had the best competition, by far had the best wins.

The criteria just needs to be clearly stated, instead of wiggling it around for which justification allows RJJ and Floyd to make another one of your unbiased praisefilled rants.

 

One of these days, you'll either get a job, or see your feet again in the shower, but I'm not holding my breath either way.

 

It's a combination of both. And it's subjective.

 

REED JUST Saw his Feet this Morning, Actually...He Peered Downward & All the While, Attached to his Ballsack was Ol' Yesnia...She Called it Her "3rd Testicle" Impersonation...



REED:hammert:

 

::

 

Sly, not for nothing, but reading this explanation for your picks, it's almost as if you dared Aaron to respond the way he did.

The only pick I strongly disagree with is Pac over Floyd. I have Duran over Ali, but don't really kill people for picking the other way considering Ali's worldwide appeal and his high level of competition.

However, citing Pac's loss and draw (both avenged) as reasons to shove him behind Floyd is hypocritical to your placing Ali (who lost three times in the 70's, though all avenged) over Duran, who was something like 55-1 for the decade, with the lone loss twice avenged and basically wiping out lightweight and getting started on welterweight in the process.

I agree with Roy over DLH, but your reasoning is seriously flawed.

 

Fair enough.

It wasn't just pac's draw and loss though..there were TWO components to my choice. Pacquiao also started to have an impact Mid decade. Floyd was beating teh likes of Corrales and Castillo since the beginnning of teh decade to beating De la Hoya and Hatton at the end...as well as being undefeated.

nevertheless I respect the comparison between this and Ali and Duran to a degree...

 

The problem with the Floyd argument is, there's a five year gap between the Castillo and DLH fights.

Secondly, Oscar's signature win was the Vargas fight (2002)...he'd lost to Mosley (2000 and 2003) and Hopkins (2004) questionably beat Felix Sturm (2004) prior to facing Mayweather and he was semi-retired by the time he got to Floyd.

After the Vargas fight, the best win he had was the Mayorga fight the year prior to the Mayweather fight. Don't forget, prior to that we'd last seen Mayorga getting drilled by Trinidad in 2004.

It's not as though Floyd faced the DLH of 1997-1999.

Pac beat Morales, MAB and arguably Marquez twice when all were in their relative primes. At least much closer than Oscar was to his. You could say Oscar was six or seven years removed from a top level fighter.

Don't confuse his status as an attraction with his status as a fighter.

I'd suggest dropping Oscar's name when defending Floyd's 2000's ledger.

 

From 2000- December 31st 2009

Mayweather
Pacquaio
Wlad and Vitali Klitschko.

I would call it a 4 way tie......Mayweather and Vitali went AWOL. Manny could be on PED's and Wladimir had a horrid 1 year spell from 2002-2003 before getting it right ever since.

 

Not a Pac fan but I have to take issue with this as well...

Pac dismantled Ledwaba in 2001...at the time Ledwaba had the appearance to be something special...Manny ruined him.

Secondly...Manny's destruction of MAB came when MAB was widely accepted as the best fighter in the game...that blowout happened in 2003.

How is that "midstream?"

Seriously, take an objective look at Manny's resume in the 2000's vs Floyd's. There's really no comparison. Manny wins that hands down.

I'd rank a close loss to Morales followed by two devastating KO's, and a draw with Marquez over wins over Gatti, Brusseles, Judah, Sosa, Corley, Mitchell...none who were considered in or near the top P4P in the game.

That's what happens when you fight the best guys out there...you tend to win and lose.

 

Nah..beating Oscar was still a good win. Why? Oscar had just wiped out Mayorga with ease....and Mosley would later struggle with the same Mayorga. Oscar was still a good fighter at the time when Floyd fought him..plus that fight was at 154lbs....so good achievement for floyd IMO.

But as i said before...I wont argue with anyone who picks Pac over Floyd. there's a good argument for that too.

 

I thought I mentioned it before, but Muzse made the point for me... Pac's run began in 2001 when he beat the crap out of Ledwaba (the best 122 lb. fighter in the world at the time). Even if you want to dismiss that fight due it not being significant enough (since you place so much emphasis on star status), his demolishing then best-featherweight Marco Antonio Barrera in 2003 certainly had to rate.

Floyd's win over Corrales came five months before Pacquiao beat Ledwaba. The Hatton fight came in December 2007... what about the two years that followed?

To be honest, I can respect a Pac-Floyd debate for this discussion. My answer is fixed on Pac, but it doesn't mean I tune out the other side. The problem is that the other side comes with conditions and exceptions, and acts as if Pacquiao's career didn't get going until the Morales rematch.

 

I don't disagree that Floyd beating Oscar is worth mentioning in this debate, mainly because Floyd is maxed out at 147 and has no business competing at 154, other than his being a naturally gifted fighter.

 

You make good points and I can accept the argument. No argument from me. Lebwaba was at the beginning of the decade, this is true, and IT WAS a significant win..because, I for one, thought ledwaba was a future P4P star before Pac dismantled him.

It is debatable. I'm still on the Mayweather side for the reasons I've given though.

 

understood.

Pacquiao's 2000s were better than Floyds on all levels.

 

No matter what I say or what I do I will always be black.Slystaff doesn't have that mentality.