I'm giving you an exception for that emotional speech but no more lengthy talk next time. Just vote, no opinion needed. :yep
I have no argument against Pacquiao as Fighter of the Decade. But if u asked me personally i would have given it to Bernard Hopkins. 20 title defenses and the undisputed middleweight champ. Pacquiao has never been champion for that long. Floyd Mayweather Jr also has an argument. He was champion for the whole decade and top 10 p4p during the decade. So for people saying Bernard and Floyd have no argument is asinine to me. Also I am not a ***** or *******. I just call it like I see it. Either 3 could have been Fighter of the Decade.
hopkins was a top class operator, but being a champion in any weight division for any length of time loses it's appeal compared to a fighter like pacquiao who jumped weights to fight bigger men and fought a better class of opponent because of it. jones was the same - great fighter who ruled his division with ease, but what pacman has done easily eclipses them. that's not to say that he was better than them, that's another story... EDIT : meaning hopkins and jones ruled poor divisions...
Manny's the fighter of the decade for the same reason many consider Tyson the fighter of the 1980s An exciting hurricaine that took the sport for a few years. I don't think anyone actually thinks Pacquiao or Tyson were the best boxers of their era The best boxer is the person least likely to get beaten. Pacquiao's had losses, draws and near missed numerous times in the last 10 years
You mean the Clottey that lost to Baldomir, and the Margarito who got whipped by Mosely. They're only good opposition for Pacquiao, and not for Mayweather, as they have a chance of beating Pacquiao
*******s love polls. As 90% of Pacquiao fans don't have jobs, are under 16, and spend all day trolling web sites.