The Mayweather's are upset about Floyd not getting this accolade....



Does he deserve it? Was Pac right to get it?


Are there any other contenders for the title?

I say it's between Pac, Mayweather, and B-Hop. For me it depends on which part of the decade you focus on.

in all honesty there are several fighters through out the decade that has a claim to the title... i mean maybe you can call manny the latest but mayweather def. has a legit claim... you can argue oscar dela hoya has a very legit claim simply beause he fought every body damn near in and around his division.... you can argue to an extent for lennox lewis that cleaned out a dismal pack of old has beens and never was fighters... there is shane mosely that one some big fights... BERNARD HOPKINS has a very legit claim to the title as well... and im sure im forgetting a few names... now with that said i could care less who the writers gave that title to.. if floyd doesnt like it what sweeter glory is there than to whip the guys ass and talk cash shit in his interview after the fight and rub it in their faces... thats how he should handle that..

For me, It's between Pacquiao, Mayweather and Hopkins... Just like Snoop said, it depends on what part of the decade you looked at. Pacquaio would have the advantage now because of his recent run but Floyd shits on him for the first half of the decade. Then you have Hopkins who beat the shit out of Trinidad (which was better than anything Pacquiao has done) along with solid wins over Tarver and Pavlik. I think it's close and each man has their argument. I'm not mad with Pacquiao getting it.

my thing is this marv... does it even matter?... that was an award given by some writers that where probably biased and payed off to begin with... i mean lets face it floyd has been his own worst enemy with the media at times... as long as the fans buy the ppv and show up for his fights he should be happy... all that award will do is collect dust anyway.. he needs to whip pacs ass for the platinum diamond belt they will dish out for that fight.... lol...

When/If they ever fight, the "Fighter of the Decade" award won't mean anything. One fighter is so much better than the other that the award will be forgotten.

How about we come to a unanimous agreement about these awards and there complete pointlessness? As another poster quite rightly said, its just a bunch of writers whose opinions are most likely over inflated and who get money for nothing. If we cared enough we might perhaps debate the validity of Manny Pacquiao's win here but I sense thats unlikely.

Ring Magazine had also named Pacquiao fighter of the decade, if I remember correctly. Like Snoop said, depends on what part of the decace you focus on but don't forget that by 2001 Pacquiao was already making a name for himself so it's not like he only started to get big wins by the middle of the decade.

Aint no way in hell Pac Man is fighter of the decade. He got his ass whooped once by Morales, he struggled with Marquez, and the two fighters he dominated Floyd already beat before he got to them. Plus De La Hoya killed himself to make that weight against Pac Man and Hatton was already damaged goods after Floyd beat his ass. Cotto was damaged goods after Margarito beat him and Clottey just didnt fight back, so i dont see any of these fights being legitimate victories for Pac cause each fight has a story to go with it. If i had to pick, it would be Floyd or B-Hop.

That's a bullshit argument.

You could say the same thing about Floyd's opponents too.

I cannot see a good argument for BHop (15-3). If you are going to go there then Calzaghe (19-0) must come into play. And I really do not want to go there but he defeated BHop and retired undefeated.

I can see Team Mayweather's problem with Manny (24-1-2) being chosen ahead of PBF (19-0), especially given the fact that two of his biggest victories were against PBF leftovers.

IMO the Klit Sisters deserve to be in the mix. Especially Wlad (23-2).

This really should be an award for the best boxer (not fighter) of the decade.

The Pudgy Russian (TPR) is without a doubt the fighter of the decade."!

...

You can't see a good argument for BHop? The guy dismantled Tito in the beginning of the decade (a fight which most thought he would lose), held his MW reign til losing a controversial decision to JT (who later was ruined), embarrassed a bigger Antonio Tarver (another fight most thought he would lose), AND schooled the shit out of Kelly Pavlik (yet another fight he was supposed to lose). The man defies the odds three times, all while pushing well past the age of 40. I think it's pretty damn impressive, at least more than anything that padded record holding, coke-snorting fairy Calzaghe has ever accomplished.

Like Mayweather, he puts a lot of emphasis on '0's.

I knew that would get this thread warmed up.

I can see a good argument for BHop having a "pretty damn impressive" decade, just not an argument for fighter of the decade. But if you must make the argument, then the "coke-snorting fairy" deserves to be in the mix.


You honor me with the utilization of my Shakespeare bait against me.

'0's are not everything. Marciano is not the GOAT heavyweight, but he was one of the most intelligent in history. Calzaghe is neither a GOAT or one of the most intelligent boxers. But if you are going to make an argument for BHop being the fighter of the decade, Calzaghe must be included in the conversation. I don't think Calzaghe is the fighter of the decade. I can't stand the dude. But he fought 19 times from 2000 to 2008 and defeated two HOF fighters at the end of his career. He defeated Kessler (39-0) to unify the WBO, WBA, and WBC titles. He defeated Jeff Lacy (21-0) when many thought he was the real deal. He defeated Sakio Bika (20-1). He held at least one Super Middle weight belt for over 10 years.

Calzaghe got the wins over BHop and RJJ, as much as I hate admitting it. You can all talk until your nuts rot off, but the fucker beat every single dude that got in the ring with him.

So...Calzaghe deserves to be in the conversation because he won a controversial split decision during the latter end of Hopkin's career? I mean what else has Calzaghe accomplished in his career that didn't occur after 2008? Shit, I'll even give you Lacy in 2006. What else has Joe done in the other 6 years that even warrants him being mentioned in the same breathe of Hopkin's legacy?

I'm sorry, but if we're considering Calzaghe just because he beat Hopkins, then I guess we need to consider Erik Morales as well.

Now losses mean nothing, right Snoop? Give me a break.

Why do you have to make excuses for BHop? He fought Calzaghe and lost. It was also at the end of Calzaghe's career. Only difference is Calzaghe was intelligent enough to retire before embarrassing himself (he saved that for after retirement).

BHop should be disqualified for the farce he participated in with RJJ.

How does anything I wrote have to do with losses? I'm just trying to understand your comparison of Calzaghe's career to BHop's. I mean the only reason I can see why you would even fathom making such a comparison is because he beat Hopkins, and I'm saying if that's the case, we need to consider Erik Morales for beating Pacquiao too right? And hey, I can see people giving the fight to Joe, but there are plenty of people who didn't. The fact remains is that his presumably "best" win isn't even a convincing one.

Calzaghe spent the first 6 years of the new millennium fighting nobodies in his protected side of the pond, then comes out and beats a green Lacy, an overrated Kessler (though a solid win I'll admit), and two legends past their primes. And Saiko Bika? What else has that guy done besides go life and death with Jaidon Codrington on "The Contender" finale? I mean if you're even trying to say Joe's resume is anywhere near to BHop's throughout the entirety of the 2000s, then you either have a love for Calzaghe or a hatred for BHop (which I would understand after the debacle of a fight with RJJ, but hey, that was AFTER the beginning of 2010).

What Morales beat Hopkins too????????

In fairness Snoop I hate Cokezaghe as well, but............if we look at Hopkins he beat an undefeated Trinidad, although I believe that honour shoud have gone to Fishhnets first, at a weight that possibly wasn't Tito's best. He beat Tarver but that had already been done 3 times already and was done another 3 times afterwards. Tarver's big claim to fame was getting hold of Roy the night he turned old in the ring, other than that he is no great shakes.

He beat Pavlik outside of Pavlik's desired weight class and possibly like Jeff Lacy could we argue that Pavlik has been slightly overrated from the beginning? Fitz would certainly say so

I'm not even going to mention the Winky fight because Winky had to rob a Dunkin Donuts store just to make weight in that fight.

I thought he won the first fight with Taylor and lost the 2nd, but again how good can we consider Jermain Taylor? And no I don't buy the concept that he 'ruined' Taylor. Affected his confidence maybe but I thought the fight that really ruined Taylor was the first Pavlik fight. Whatever whatever though coz he actually lost both fights on the scorecard.

On the plus side his achievements on the wrong side of 40 are phenominal however as far as I understand we are simply rating a fighter's decade on his wins, not what age he did them at.

I guess we could pick apart anyone's record but I'll go with Pac (surprise surprise LOL) with Floyd a close second.

You know what I meant you jerk.


Okay okay, downplay BHop's accomplishments all you want, say Pac is more deserving of the award, say Floyd is, fine. But there is NO WAY you're gonna tell me Calzaghe's resume comes close to BHop's, even a discredited one.

Now now Snoop me ole mate where did I say that?

(Yes I am a jerk )

Well I didn't mean to imply you, specifically, said that, but more of a general "you". Actually just to Beardo.

Personally there is really no one that truly deserves it unanimously. There are so many things people can pick apart with the top guys(Floyd, Pac, Bhop, Calzs, etc.). I honestly go back and forth, but just come to the conclusion no one is deserving. Just my take.

An undefeated Trinidad that was a STRONG favourite to beat Hopkins, a guy that just knocked out 160 champion Joppy previously. Up until that point, it was against an EXCELLENT Trinidad. If you want to give that honour to DLH so be it, but he didn't beat Trinidad the way DLH did and if we want to get technical, couldn't we give that honour to Marquez for beating Pacquiao as well this decade?
He beat Tarver. Hopkins was at 160, coming off a loss to Taylor, and jumped up to 175 to fight the recognised champion that had knocked out RJJ. Once again, Hopkins was a HEAVY underdog when he jumped up 2 divisions to fight Tarver. Are you going to discredit Pacquiao for beating DLH, because it had already been done MORE than 3 times? Also you mention that 160 wasn't Trinidad's best weight, I could also make the argument that 147 wasn't DLH's best weight as well, as that was his first time at 147 in more than 7 years. That doesn't sound like a good weight for a guy in his mid 30's to drop down to for the first time in 7 years? Pacquiao also beat Hatton that was done before. Surely if Hopkins isn't going to get credit for beating a guy 2 weight classes above him, that he was an underdog for and his opponents had already lost before, surely the same must be applied to Pacquaio for fighting guys above his weight that had lost before, no?



Definitely overrated, but that doesn't change anything for me because I still give credit to fighters I find overrated, even when it doesn't suit my argument either. I give Calzaghe a fuckload of credit for beating Lacy, I give Tszyu a shitload of credit for beating Judah. I think it's underrated for guys to go into fights as underdogs, against undefeated guys. They are basically venturing into the unknown. At the time, nobody gave Hopkins a chance, people wanted to see the fight and felt Pavlik was going to stop him (just like, Lacy and Judah and countless others). I give credit for taking a fight the public didn't give them a good chance in and they dished out one of their best career performances. So while I don't rate Pavlik, I rate the win extremely high.
I often use the logic that you are out, and a group of people dare you to do something and they all say you can't do it. You go out and do it simply. You deserve credit for that, even if you did do it easily. People doubted you and proved you wrong. Totally different than picking up a task that everyone knows you can do easily anyways. It's why I don't like using hindsight. At the time, what those fighters did was great.
Mosley is another guy I give credit for putting on the performance he did against Margarito. I never rated Margarito highly, but hey, he did what nobody thought he would do. He deserves credit as well.



I also disagree with this. If we can increase value for a Pacquiao win, a Mayweather win and all these other fighters wins for moving up in weight and winning. We are not simply rating it as a 'win'. People rate Pacquiao's win over DLH because it was at 147 and he moved up correct? If Pacquiao was a natural 147 fighter, that fight wouldn't be as impressive as it is now, why? Because he moved up. If we can increase the value of other fighters win for defying the odds and winning fights under difficult circumstances (bigger men), surely we can increase value for Hopkins win for doing what he is doing well into his 40's?

That said, I am all for opinions, and not to sound like an ass but I think it comes down to three names.

• Pacquiao
• Mayweather Jr
• Hopkins

Anyone else, I'm, sorry and I really can't see an argument for and they don't deserve to be in this thread. Any other name isn't suitable, and I'm still trying to wrap my head around the Calzaghe call, lol.

Maybe I'm lettting my own opinion of Trinidad cloud my argument but I've never really rated the guy (strange I know.) I didn't see Hopkins' win as that surprising, although the beatdown he administered was. As to the 'public' opinion, shoot I've never really put much of a foundation in public opinion. The public can be manipulated pretty easily.

I do put some stock in my OWN opinion and that is that Trinidad whilst good at 160 wasn't at his optimum weight there. Beating up Joppy is no yardstick. And again whilst thinking of my OWN opinion I have never been that impressed with Tarver. Never. I loved the way Hops owned Tarver that night. I thought he would win something like 8 rounds to 4 so I guess a complete shutout was impressive.

As for him beating Pavlik, well I picked him to beat Pavlik on these boards before the fight was even announced or even rumoured. That wasn't such a hard pick really Fitzy From a purely personal perspective that win isn't that high up in Nard's career pecking order (although I do find myself watching it a lot, ha ha.)

I'll cede a little on the age thing. I'd be willing to factor it in to some degree, that's a fair call when you point it out.

As for crediting or discrediting Pac as my number 1, I don't think anywhere I have outlined why I have him at number 1, so it's a little unfair for you to use Pac in your argument.

I don't put much credit in the DLH win, but yes the way he despatched Hatton gets some plus points from me. The Hatton and Cotto wins, and the way he did them, are probably my major reasons for plumping for Pac. Dominating Barerra twice I think doesn't get Pac enough credit. That and he stepped up and fought the 3 Mexican legends a total of 7 times. Regardless of whether you thought he won the Marquez fights or not I think fighting those tough basterds 7 times merits some credit.

Here is a guy who has taken on consistently hard fights particularly in the early part of the decade and his willingness to take these challenges is what gives him the nod over Mayweather in my eyes.

Now feel free to pull apart my Pac arguments

Boxing is unique, in a sense that there is no league or fixture. We don't get the top 10 all fighting each other, there is no structure and there is no fixture. We generally don't trust what sanctioning bodies tell us on who the best fighters are, we don't trust the fighters or promoters. In just about every case, we think 'us' the boxing fans have a better opinion and idea on what we feel is a good fight. We trust ourselves more than them. When fighters take on a fight that the public demands, that is probably the best thing, because like I said, we trust ourselves more than them with what is quality. We don't need 4 different sanctioning bodies tell us what the best fights are, the promoters telling us what we want and so on. Our judgement is the best when it comes to what we want.
Now that is where I give the winner credit in demanded fights, as they are taking the route from the most 'respected' opinion (ie-us). I don't feel they can do much more than that. Sometimes I may be in the minority and correct (ie-Pavlik), and other times not. But I won't dismiss the public opinion when it suits me or doesn't suit me, when it comes to that regard, I will just use what the public wanted. I don't know, I may look at it differently than others, but that's me.



Well, I wasn't really trying to discredit your reasons, I was just more countering your arguments about Hopkins and the criticism you gave him, and was showing that you could use those exact arguments for Pacquiao. I also don't feel like I should pull apart your Pacquiao arguments, because it definitely has merit. Like I said above, it comes down to three guys for now. Pacquiao, Mayweather and Hopkins, anyone else other than those 3 names listed is wrong IMO, and very wrong. So you have Pacquaio, and that's fine, you ;aid out your reasons and they were legit.
That said, I think these three are the closest and I can see an argument for anyone of these guys and I won't try to pull it apart. I suppose I don't think any of those three are wrong. Though if I was to guess, I think the public opinion for this would probably be Mayweather and Pacquiao at about 40%/40% and Hopkins at about 20%. I think Hopkins would be the least popular decision, though I don't think someone making a case for him is wrong.

Holy fuck, PLEASE take Calzaghe off that list.

Cut it out!

As much as it pains me to say this, you all know that Oscar De La Hoya should have been awarded Fighter of the Decade. Guys like Floyd Mayweather, Manny Pacquiao, Bernard Hopkins and Shane Mosley ALL needed to beat Oscar just to even be considered a part of this conversation. Time and time again, De La Hoya was involved in the biggest pay-per-view events that you all tuned in for...whether it was De La Hoya vs. Pacquiao, De La Hoya vs. Mayweather, De La Hoya vs. Hopkins, De La Hoya vs. Mosley, De La Hoya vs. Vargas or even De La Hoya vs. Mayorga, it was always a MAJOR event when Oscar De La Hoya fought. For a fighter to STILL be able to pull in over 1 million PPV buys (which he did with Pacquiao, a fighter that was believed to be WAY too small for him) despite having a record of 8-4 throughout the decade says a lot about how much people liked him. Forget about wins and losses over those years (which the BWAA clearly didn't take into consideration)...it's all about popularity and hands down, Oscar De La Hoya was the fighter to watch in the 2000s. Hell, if he came back today and fought Chavez Jr. or Ricky Hatton, he'd STILL do over 1 million PPV buys. I don't think Floyd Mayweather, Manny Pacquiao OR Bernard Hopkins could do something like that.

So yeah...if anyone should be pissed about that award, it should be Oscar De La Hoya.

My personal pick would have been Floyd, however, I think the real guy that got snubbed was De La Hoya.



Go figure.



And just a side note about the BWAA...anyone...and I mean ANYONE can become a member so long as they pay their yearly membership fees.

In other words, that organization is WORTHLESS. Membership has NO privileges whatsoever other than the fact that you can say, "I'm a member of the BWAA."

I agree.

Pacquiao beat Cotto, Morales (Morales was SHOT in the third fight and weight drained), Barrera, DLH, Hatton, Larios, Ledwaba....but I feel he went 0-1-1 against Marquez. Hopkins went 1-0-1 with Taylor and beat Calzaghe so he didn't lose in this decade in my eyes. Floyd was excellent at JLW-LW....didn't doo much at JWW...but beat De La Hoya at 154 (very good win because Oscar was still good)...beat an undefeated Hatton, Zab Judah, Baldomir (underrated fighter)..Marquez....

Calzaghe...HELL NO!!!! His best win is Kessler. Lacy is a good fighter but a B- champion. Barrera, Morales, Marquez > Calzaghe

Prince Naseem Hamed...

Thanks for doing us a favor and checking out early in the decade.

Though there maybe a hint of sacrasm in this post, you do bring up an interesting point. I'm not too sure if anyone has fought the list of fighters (even if they were just names) in the decade that Oscar has. Win, lose, or draw at least he made the fights that obviously people wanted to see. Not my personal choice for Fighter of the decade but you gotta give the Golden Girl some credit.

My vote goes to Floyd. He beat Baldomir for crying out loud.

How could u say the same thing about Floyd's opponents? Hatton was undefeated when floyd whooped him, Oscar fought at his natural weight when Floyd whooped him, Shane was fresh off of beating Margarito when Floyd whooped him, although Marquez was smaller Floyd still whooped him, so i dont see ur point. Pac have not beat anybody who wasnt already tainted by the time they got to him. Im not sayin that Floyd fought the greatest fighters, but if u have to compare between him and Pac, its not even close.

C'mon Hatton was never any great shakes. It's not like Floyd blew him away in 2.............................

ODLH was semi-retired when Floyd fought him. Oscar's prime was about a bazillion years ago back when he fought Quartey and Trinidad, and Floyd got out of that with a SD if I remember correctly.

Marquez was a joke at that weight and you know it.

Shane yes I rate that as a very very good win.

Chill man!!! I ONLY put his name in there(though I regret doing so) is because his name was put out there a few times in this thread. No fucking way does he even remotely belong in the same breath as others, simply because he refused to take the necessary chances to challenge himself. His padded record is pure garbage. Sorry for the confusion, and I agree I should have never put his name there.

Ok with that being said about Floyd, tell me what Pac has done in the last ten years then?

BHop never avenged his loss to CalSlappy. Pac (and a number of others) destroyed Morales.

I can't stand CalSoggy. I don't hate BHop. I kind of feel sorry for him. He had a great career but could never endear himself to the greater public. He took some questionable losses and then became a circus freak.


Look, close your eyes and cover your ears if you want. I only brought CalSoggy up for conversation's sake, but the fact is he deserves to be in the conversation. He beat everyone put in the ring with him in the decade. He defeated BHop and RJJ. He retired an undefeated champion. Was he the fighter of the decade? Hell no. Neither was BHop.


"What are you gonna do bust a CAPSLock on me?"

Sorry Snoop. Couldn't resist.


Don't hurt yourself.


I'd accept JMM into the conversation.

Hey...don't forget about Gatti. He DOMINATED Gatti. Gatti would have boxed Pacquiao's ears off!

As for De La Hoya, sadly, I was being serious. Numbers don't lie...De La Hoya was the man to watch in 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2006, 2007 AND 2008! 8 OUT OF THE 10 YEARS!!!! DON'T DISPUTE IT! RESISTANCE IS FUTILE!

OSCAR DE LA HOYA IS THE TRUE FIGHTER OF THE DECADE!!!

OSCAR! OSCAR! OSCAR! OSCAR! OSCAR! OSCAR! OSCAR!

Think about that! Let it soak in! That's a scary thought.

That's an article just waiting to be written.

LOL. My bad bro. I know you didn't mean it. I just can't believe Calzaghe is being compared to these guys.


Nah man. I'm not Warlord

Don't worry about me, I'm fine. I have the feeling that this advice is too late to give to yourself. You must be already hurt to have Calzaghe as fighter of the decade, haha. I just hope you didn't hit your head too hard.

And I dare you, I freakin double dare you to write it

I definitely don't think he is fighter of the decade. But he was definitely boxing face/figure of the decade like you said. I think Oscar was great in this decade, just for very different reasons, and hell he was definitely a world class fighter and one of the top p4p fighters of the decade. Just not the creme de la creme. But you could definitely right a very strong article about Oscar and his dominance of boxing (in a different way) and greatness for the decade.
He just definitely isn't with Mayweather, Hopkins and Pacquiao for purely boxing's best.

That said, I'm not really sure if you are being semi serious or sarcastic, lol. I think you know there is some truth, but exaggerating it as well at the same time. Sometimes you speak in such a sarcastic manner, even your emotions seem that way, lol. But you make true points which throw me off from time to time, haha.

I think the excessive use of caps and the Oscar! Osacr! Oscar! part may give it away.

Well I'm not being sarcastic...I'm being serious...and it PAINS me to admit that.



But seriously...think about it. I mean, first and foremost, who said that being "Fighter of the Decade" means that you're the best or the creme de la creme? Obviously it doesn't, otherwise they wouldn't have selected a fighter with 1 loss and 2 draws during this past decade.



I mean, Roy Jones Jr. was the BWAA Fighter of the Decade for 1990-1999. Personally, I disagree as I can't even think of one MAJOR fight that Jones was in from 1990-1999 other than Bernard Hopkins (1993) and James Toney (1994). Other than those two fights, name me another highly-anticipated fight that he participated in during that time period! The Montell Griffin rematch is the only one I can think of, and personally, I think that says a lot.

Before Jones, Sugar Ray Leonard was named the BWAA Fighter of the Decade for 1980-1989, despite having only fought 12 times during that timeframe. Just 12 fights in 10 years...that's pretty weak, but at least he fought Roberto Duran, Thomas Hearns and Marvin Hagler in some of the most anticipated fights of that decade.

Poor Oscar though...the man was completely snubbed by a group of writers who made their living and their names off of him. It's absolutely disgusting if you ask me. I mean, here's a guy who was involved in EVERY major PPV event and probably fought more big names and elite fighters than Leonard and Jones COMBINED! I know some of you may be thinking that I'm off my rocker, but seriously...think about that for a minute. Quick...name me the biggest names that Jones and Leonard fought:

James Toney (Jones)
Bernard Hopkins (Jones)
Joe Calzaghe (Jones)
Felix Trinidad (Jones)

* Note that I didn't even mention Tarver's ass, since the only reason why he even has a name is because of Roy

Marvin Hagler (Leonard)
Thomas Hearns (Leonard)
Roberto Duran (Leonard)
Wilfred Benitez (Leonard)

I mean, don't get me wrong...I'm sure there's a couple of other names you can sprinkle in there for both guys...like maybe Hector Camacho or Terry Norris for Leonard, but I'm just throwing names out there off the top of my head.

Now do the same for De La Hoya:

Manny Pacquiao
Floyd Mayweather
Bernard Hopkins
Shane Mosley
Fernando Vargas
Felix Trinidad
Pernell Whitaker
Julio Cesar Chavez

Again, that's just skimming the surface...like Leonard, I also could have mentioned Hector Camacho, but the point is, De La Hoya has fought a lot of motherfuckers with big names and just like Leonard and Jones, he won some and he lost some. But how can you deny that De La Hoya was involved in nearly EVERY MAJOR EVENT from 2000 to 2008? Practically every "highly-anticipated" bout, every "fight to save boxing", every "PPV blockbuster"...basically, with the exception of a couple of years, just about every big fight that we, as fans, looked forward to from 2000 to 2008, De La Hoya was involved in. Take a look:

2000: De La Hoya vs. Mosley
2001: De La Hoya vs. Castillejo
2002: De La Hoya vs. Vargas
2003: De La Hoya vs. Mosley 2
2004: De La Hoya vs. Hopkins
2005: NO FIGHT
2006: De La Hoya vs. Mayorga
2007: De La Hoya vs. Mayweather
2008: De La Hoya vs. Pacquiao

Okay, so De La Hoya vs. Castillejo and De La Hoya vs. Mayorga weren't the most anticipated fights out there, and 2002 may have been overshadowed by Tyson vs. Lewis, but the point is, a lot of motherfuckers STILL tuned in to watch for the simple fact that it was De La Hoya who was fighting. I mean, Manny Pacquiao, God love him, but nobody was salivating to watch him fight. Just do a side-by-side comparison of their fights throughout the decade and you tell me which fights you were more anxious to see:

2000: De La Hoya vs. Mosley ..... OR ..... Pacquiao vs. Hussein
2001: De La Hoya vs. Castillejo/Gatti ..... OR ..... Pacquiao vs. Ledwaba
2002: De La Hoya vs. Vargas ..... OR ..... Pacquiao vs. Rakkiatgym
2003: De La Hoya vs. Mosley 2 ..... OR ..... Pacquiao vs. Barrera
2004: De La Hoya vs. Hopkins ..... OR ..... Pacquiao vs. Marquez
2005: NO FIGHT ..... OR ..... Pacquiao vs. Morales
2006: De La Hoya vs. Mayorga ..... OR ..... Pacquiao vs. Morales 2/3
2007: De La Hoya vs. Mayweather ..... OR ..... Pacquiao vs. Barrera 2
2008: De La Hoya vs. Pacquiao (TIE)
2009: NO FIGHT ..... OR ..... Pacquiao vs. Cotto/Hatton

I think a lot of you would agree that in AT LEAST six of those years, you were anticipating De La Hoya's big fights over Pacquiao's big fights. In 2008, they fought each other, so that year is a wash. So that means for just 3 years out of the decade, Manny Pacquiao had the bigger and more anticipated fights...and in 2 out of those 3 years, De La Hoya didn't even fight. Now that, my friends, says a lot.

I've never been the biggest Golden Boy supporter, but as much as it PAINS me to say it, he's the TRUE Fighter of the Decade...not Pacquiao, not Mayweather, not Hopkins, but De La Hoya. That's pretty fuckin' sad, but he TOTALLY got snubbed by all the genius members of the Boxing Writers Association of America.

For those that are curious, Roberto Duran was the BWAA Fighter of the Decade for 1970-1979, but can you name me anyone that he beat during that timeframe WITHOUT going to Boxrec to look it up? I'll give you one...Ken Buchanan...now name me another. To this day, I STILL don't know how those fuckin' idiots didn't give it to Muhammad Ali. I mean, they gave it to Ali for 1960-1969, and yet his body of work in the 70's (Frazier, Chuvalo, Quarry, Patterson, Norton, Foreman, Lyle, Shavers, Spinks) was a lot better in my opinion.

Stupid fuckin' BWAA.

Alright already, I withdraw CalSoggy.

You know Fitz, I generally respect your opinions, though they often bored-er on being Tolstoyian. If you don't mind, could you actually bother reading my posts before attempting to humor-lously humiliate me for them. I didn't pick CalSoggy as fighter of the decade. I said he deserves to be in the conversation if BHop is being considered. Translation for DownUnderlings = neither deserve to be considered.

That's all we ever wanted.

This topic was history, and i don't think it's proper to dispute it. Time hand is ticking and nobody can revert it. Just accept the facts....

Can someone tell me why calzaghe's name is in this thread?



It's got to be:

Pac
DLH
Hopkins
Mayweather


I'm with Hype on this - DLH has put work in!

We don't think you're crazy, we just know it.

All kidding aside, I get what you're saying, DLH was THE fighter of the decade based on how many events he created but I bet if we were to ask the Boxing writers association what their reasoning was, they would say that it is based on accomplishments. Pac and Mayweather have amassed so many wins that it could only be those two at the top.