I understand what your trying to say but once again I'm looking at the complete body of work. Pac has beaten the mexican warriors and he did it ferociously I misght say, but I still won't gove him credit for fights I dont believe he won like JMM, just like I believe floyd is 40-1 because any1 with sense could see castillo was beating him in their 1st encounter. I'm not looking at when floyd, manny, or b hop fought there opponents I'm looking @ the names and he has quite the resume in that regard. I do agree that Floyd's inactivity is a factor but he has been accused of cherry picking and I believe that pac has done that as of late himself. I love to watch them fight and will continue to do so. But when I look at the wins over corrales, castillo(once) , gatti, zab, dlh, hatton, mosley, JMM. I see his victories more favorably to manny's wins over cotto, margarito, morales, barerra, JMM. He's fought those legends but I'm looking at the complete body of work here. I respect your opinion and agree to disagree

Fair enough. For me I just can't count Zab or Gatti as great wins. Nor Fatton to be honest. Pac gets no credit there either. Floyd's win over JMM at the weight they fought discounts it for me, as will Pac's win if he does it in the 3rd encounter.

I said from the start though I actually give the title to Hopkins. He was fighting dudes at their peak at the start of the decade and is still fighting dudes at their peak at the end of the decade and now 2 weight classes up. In many ways his resume is the least attractive of all 3 but crucially when he fought them makes up for it (in my opinion.)

Updated with Calzaghe included

Showdown: Mayweather - Pacquiao - Hopkins - Calzaghe
Record: 15-0 - 16-1-2 - 12-3 - 16-0 Calzaghe
Record in Title Fights: 13-0 - 16-1-2 - 11-3 - 14-0 Calzaghe
Titles Owned(Any "title"): 10 - 10 - 6 - 4 Mayweather/Pacquiao
Weight Class Transitions(Including fluctuation): 7 - 8 - 1 - 2 Pacquiao
Undefeated Fights(Regardless of who won): 2 - 3 - 5 - 3Hopkins
Longest Running Champion: 7 years - 9 years - 4 years - 6 years Pacquiao

Winner: Pacquiao with Calzaghe second

See how this doesn't work? You can make up your own criteria to work towards a certain way. Also strange that something important like 'title' defenses were not included in this criteria. Which would make Calzaghe tied at number 1 if you judged like that.

The main discussion were between Mayweather, Pacquiao, and Hopkins. I may add Calzaghe's resume later if more people feel he should be "nominated". Uhh, "Record in Title Fights" include title defenses. You make it seem like I was purposely trying to make someone win... In reverse it makes you seem like you're purposely trying to make someone lose
On another note, what would be an legitimate reward and comparisons? It doesn't seem like anyone here is really doing that, instead are just saying, "Oh I think the caliber of fighters he fought is much better" aka opinion, aka more possible bias.

Well I know it's semi included, but title defenses is slightly different. It shows how many times you 'successfully' defended your title, the same title.

Title fights include losses, and fighting for different titles, I think there is a difference between the 2 and the amount of times someone 'successfully' defends there title is a good stat.

For example Bernard Hopkins who has 20 title defenses (I know a lot of these were before 2001) would not get a point on this criteria for his defenses. He is also punished as well because for a long portion, he only held 4 titles because that's the maximum you could have in that one division, and when you're undisputed and defending your title for years and years, you won't pick up 'other' titles. Yet someone like Mayweather can have a fight with Gatti and win a title, pick up a paper title off Judah, beats Hatton at 147, Oscar's 154 title and there he is already in 4.
Someone that jumps up and down in weight picking up paper titles gets rewarded, yet someone who stays put and defends the same title a numerous amount of times gets punished.
Just the way it is, it's designed in a bias way. For example the criteria "Weight Class Transitions(Including fluctuation):". What the hell??? Then right at the end, you put this 'gem':

"If more things were included like "Most Money Earned". Mayweather would be the winner."

Like seriously?

Too many holes if you're using that method to determine the best fighter, and it's designed in a bias way.

You guys have to understand Pac wasn't considered an amazing fighter until he moved up to 140 and won... Before that Pac was an exiciting fighter who was fun to watch but lost to morales, i thought jmm beat him twice, hes been KOed before.. Mayweather ever since the start of the decade was already considered great and the reason people would talk bad about his opposition was because they already expected so much from him because he was simple an amazing talent and it was obvious. Floyd is really the true boxer of the decade and Pac is amazing I give him credit but hes more hype and has fought people floyd already beat and is in love with catchweights.

To be honest it was Pac's acheivements below 140 that I think are his most impressive. I mean who gives a fuck if you were considered great at the start of the decade? I'm not sure Floyd was to be honest, all his best fights were still in front of him.

Pac beat the shit out of Barerra when he was a complete unknown, manhandled Morales in away that a supposed beast like Maidana wasn't able to, and yes went wire to wire with JMM, a guy that Barerra nor Morales had taken on. Make no mistake JMM is a BEAST at those weights and going 2 close fights to him is a pretty good accomplishment. In fact I think a prime JMM is a helluva lot more of a handful than any of the fighters Floyd faced at a lighter weight and yes in my opinion I'd include JLC.

At the higher weights Floyd fought Zab, (Baldy's scraps), DLH, (Bernards scraps), Mosley (Cotto's scraps), JMM (Pac's scraps) and Baldy the feather duster seller from Argentina. Oh and I forgot Hatton the undefeated bruiser from Manchester. Really not a stunning resume.

Listen to me, if Floyd beat Pac... you critics Floyd and you know about it.You guys never give credit to Floyd.But May deserves it.Simply said "i am big hater".

Fixed your post for you mate. Dont need to thank me.

You make it seem like Judah was a nobody, he was the unified undisputed ww champ who happen to lose to Baldomir. DLH was no middleweight, we all know that. He was still effective @154(some say his best weight). Mosley had just demolished the man who took Cotto's heart. JMM(is nobody's scraps) was as good as he is today and coming off a great fight with Diaz. Baldomir was the unified ww champ, he was #1 at the weight, how can you knock him for fighting him? I'm not saying Mayweather has the best resume but its still legit, you give the man 0 credit. is it just because you expect him to dominate all those fights?

People(not me) would argue DLH beat him. Judah was effective. He had never fought a fighter like Shane. Baldomir was too big. Mayweather beats all of them clean and its like, "those guys all weren't that good."

You give Pac all the credit in the world for his wins against morales(he lost to him first) Barrera(i still think his best win) and Marquez(2 very close fights) but is there any doubt that had any of those fighters fought Mayweather at 130(they were all @126 at the same time) that he wouldn't have won?

Mayweather is definitely a great fighter, he may have taken an easy path in some respects and not fought all of the best around him. that argument could be made for Hopkin,s as well as Jones, Pacquiao, Leonard and any other fighter of the last 40 years. Not every fight gets made, tell me one fight that could have reasonably been made while Mayweather was @ any given weight(weights he competed @) that you would hands down pick against him?

Title Defenses is a reasonable reward, but how can you separate your overall title record from title defenses, when your record in title fights include your defenses? Even if Title Defenses were included as a separate reward, Hopkins would still lose because he lost them twice in title defenses.
Record in Title Defenses: 10-0 (Mayweather) 10-0 (Pacquiao) 9-2 (Hopkins) Mayweather/Pacquiao
Pacquiao also won paper titles. Weight Class Transitions, as in moving up in weight, including Fluctuation, like Pacquiao moving up to fight Diaz, then moving up to fight De La Hoya, then moving down to fight Hatton. How is that not an impressive feat?
I think someone earlier mentioned money being a factor, IF Money were included, Mayweather would win. But I didn't include it... You could also include other things like quickest to win a new title, or most dominating performance in a title fight... But I don't think those are "very" rewarding things.
What bias? What are more reasonable rewards that can be decided? I know it may seem like I'm trying to make Mayweather win to you, but it also looks to me you're just trying to make him lose, and trying to make Hopkins win.
The quotes below are more reasons why I don't agree with trying to decide who's Fighter of the Decade just by only giving your opinion on who had the best "caliber of fighters." If you ask me, that's probably the most biased way to do it.

I never really got how FNJ's resume was that impressive, I mean, I do even think his haters will/would knock his skills but has he ever fought anyone you thought might REALLY BEAT HIM? I can't name one wishful thinking or not! Pac and X have both faced guys that I thought they would lose though. And peeps talk about the hatred for FMJ, BUT THAT WAS BY HIS OWN DESIGN and out of the ring bullshit added it for many, bottom line though, FMJ IS A MASTER BOXER, LOVE HIM OR HATE HIM!

Who would you have liked to see him fight, that was at the same weight as him, that you would have chose to beat him? Koysta Tzyu @140, Stevie Johnston @135, Cotto/Margarito/Williams @147? I cant think of any fighter that i would have chosen over Floyd, think those fights maybe close but none that i see as a clear pick or would feel safe betting on

He just happened to lose? Haha see the problem with yor logic is there were many fights for Floyd to take north of 140 and he always used to dimiss them by saying "oh look this guy has 3 losses on his record why should I bother fighting him?" He dismissed Mosley earlier when Shane was closer to his prime by saying that, dismissed Williams after he LOST to Quintana, dismissed Margarito for the same reason. I'm not saying he would lose to those guys but if that is your logic how can he justify fighting a guy (Judah) that came straight off a loss?

Also if you are a half decent fighter with potentially the biggest fight of your life coming up you don't 'happen to lose to Bladomir.' It sorta sums Zab up perfectly dont you think?

The reason I bring up scraps is Pac is constantly hammered for fighting guys that have recently been beaten. Well doesn't Mayweather do the same? The only undefeated guy he fought in recent times was Hatton. See that's my point, the whole Manny fights guys with recent losses can be used on Floyd too.

Can't have it both ways I'm afraid.

Yea Judah didn't train hard for that fight, the Judah that fought Mayweather probably would have beaten Baldomir. The Judah vs Mayweather fight was signed before the Judah v Baldomir fight. It was Bob Arum that made that decision. Mosley didn't want Floyd when he was closer to his prime. They were @130 and 135 both undefeated and Mosley went after DLH(no knock for that). Mayweather wanted him after the second Vargas fight but Mosley said he had a tooth ache(he was fighting @154 after the Forrest fight and Floyd was @135). Baldomir was worth more than Margarito and was the lineal champion(plus Arum owed Floyd 5mill from the Judah fight, why would he fight an Arum fighter?). Williams wasnt worth any money and Floyd was retired in 08 after that Hatton win, no reason to fight williams.

Besides Judah who has Mayweather fought that was coming off a big loss?? Its not about fighting an undefeated guy(undefeated a lot of the times means untested) its about fighting a guy coming off an impressive fight.

DLH got hit a lot by Forbes. cotto wasn't impressive beating Clottey? Clottey just lost. Margarito was coming in off a garbage win against Robert Garcia(and suspended for a year). Hatton was the closest thing to looking impressive in his previous fight(win over feather fisted malinaggi) but never looked the same after Floyd(Lazcano almost took his head off). Mosley looked bad against Mora. JMM is the best opponent Manny has fought imo since himself 3.5 years ago.

Baldomir was coming off his biggest win in Judah( and a lot of people were saying he was way to big for Mayweather) DLH looked great disposing of Mayorga. Hatton destroyed JLC. JMM was p4p #2 and coming off an exciting win over Diaz(many picked him to lose) and Mosley had destroyed Margarito(although he was on the bench for a min after the Berto fight fell through).

You know I could refute every single one of these points. I really could, it wouldn't be hard. But I'm tired. As has been discussed in the 'old guard' thread it seems like there is a number of posters who only want to discuss the greatness of Floyd. I mean Haz has just started another absolutely ridiculous fucken thread about the same done-to-death topic of Pac/Martinez. I was half tempted to go and post in there but what's the point? The guys clueless and as Hype says if you're not interested don't post.

Lloyd, Steve, Gravy etc I really think it's best just to boycott these kind of threads, there is no getting through to them and I guess if we don't take the bait then they'll just be reduced to babbling with each other. As I say leave that stupid Haz thread alone and we'll see how long it lasts.

P.S Just a bit of evidence, you note that Hatton was coming off 'destroying' JLC. Was that the same JLC that was completely shot as a fighter and ready for the glue factory?

As for Mosley he said BEFORE the second Vargas fight that that would be the last time he was fighting that year as he would be taking time off to spend with his family. As I said that was BEFORE the toothache interview which was post fight. Get your facts straight. Again I could go on and on and on with the other points but what's the point?

I'm not saying Floyd is the greatest fighter, I'm saying the guy deserves a little credit. I totally agree with you that JLC was shot, doesn't change the fact he destroyed him. JLC should have lost to Herman Ngoudjo. I understand that Mosley said he was taking time off. when was Floyd suppose to fight him them, because I'm lost.

I don't consider myself one of these guys who's constantly talking about Mayweather, the topic was brought up. i put my input on it and you refuted me. It's all opinion and doesn't even matter, i was jst having a little back and forth with you.

No I can see by when you joined you're not definately part of the crowd, and you're a good poster, it would be nice to se you post a little more often and not just Floyd related. It's probably just the straw that broke the camel's back, I'm a bit like Steve when he posted up the old guard thread, just tired of talking about the same old thing. I mean Floyd has a fight with Ortiz coming up and Manny will soon be taking on his nemisis JMM although at a weight JMM is not probably good at. However I think JMM knows Manny well enough that this could be a good fight. Who knows but it could be interesting.

I wish there were more threads about these fights without cross contaminating the 2. I would like to hear more on people's thoughts about how Hopkins has already begun to mind fuck Dawson, what is Pavlik gonna do next? Will Mares win the rematch without throwing every second shot to the nuts?

Anyhoo I'll just avoid these kind of threads from now on and let Haz and his crew go nuts.

Those are all good topics. Haha, i would love to post more but i gotta work sometime. I think the real problem is that a lot of the new guys post the majority of the topics and it baits you in because some of it is so ridiculous and it turns into what this is. The "old guard" and quality posters need to make more threads and ignore the retreads, maybe that's the solution.

You're probably right mate, Haz will eventually turn on all the rest of them anyway, and fail to realise the hypocrisy in his posts when he's calling them all out for a fist fight because they are all keyboard gangsters.

They are the Floyd Mayweather division of the Jehovahs witness movement. Come knockin at your door and try desperately to force their opinion on you. Best ignored.

Hahaha! When those witnesses come knockin' at my door, I tell them I'm a Muslim. They hurriedly skimp away.

I could definitely see how Hopkins is/could be the boxer of the decade. Dude has Never been dominated and even when he loses, controversy surrounds the decision. I thought that he beat Calzaghe, I thought it was 115-113 for B-Hop, and that's due to the knockdown. He did slow down though from 7 on but I just can't see how Calzaghe got any credit for those earlier rounds. And your right, he has fought people in their prime and took the fight directly to them.

Plus Hopkins' wins were all 'clean' wins. I can't remember him winning any disputed decisions. If he had been given the first Taylor fight, I think he won that close but cleanly and the Clazaghe fight, another close but clean win then I don''t think this would even be up for debate.

lil bitch

Hmmmm...I guess it depends on what the criteria is. Is it just who is the best? Who has achieved the most? Or who has defined boxing for the decade?


If it's who's the best, then it has to be Floyd Mayweather.

If it's based on who's had the best career in that decade, then undoubtedly Hopkins.

If it's taking into consideration who had the biggest effect on boxing in that decade, then I agree with Smarty that Oscar de la Hoya basically carried the fight game on his shoulders for that 10 year period, even if he lost most of his big fights.




Black