Who is the 2nd best Fighter of the Decade?

LOL that is not Yahoo Sports top 5 of the decade just 1 specific yahoo writer's

 

Hops has done some amazing things and his best wins compare with any top wins. Without those close losses I'd rank nim alongside Pac. Both men left their comfort zones and did thing s they weren't suppose to be doing. I think that's what sets guys apart, theres alot of very talented guys who get no recognition, some get it and don't deserve it. But Hop and Pac got the fame and showed me why they deserved it.

 

He represents Yahoo Sports.

 

Kevin Iole didn't compile the list.

 

Of course he is:smoke

 

regardless who he represents, he's just 1 writer.

It'll be interesting to see who the ring magazine's best fighter of the decade is since I think thats voted in by a panel of like 25 boxing journalists.

 

Mayweather doesn't have the kind of reusme to support him being placed over PAC....****...he deosn't even have enough clout to be considered over Bhop. Floyd is only as high up on peoples list b/c of his unusal talent and impecible skill sets....but as great as he is he lacks the substance that the all time greats hold with regards to their legacy. An undefeated record and his ablility to move up in weight are the only big accomplishments on his ledger. He's a distant 3rd to nard.

 

You don't got to be his fan to side with reason and logic. :smoke

 

Yea....Jones should be up there too...but given his consectutive back to back losses to Tarver and Johnson really tainted his legacy. He's still great...but Jones was the best fighter of the decade in the 1990s! PAC is definitely the best of this decade.

 

Isn't the Ring the same magazine that ranked a guy no.1 at WW that you believe needs to a catchweight to fight against other Welters? Do you really trust their rankings?

 

What's there to discuss? PAC's resume and accomplishments eclipses ANYONE of his peers at the moment. The only debate is who is going to come in 2nd at the moment.

 

Now that Pac vs Floyd on the horizon, you're starting to sound like Nallege.

I think Pac vs Floyd needs to happen at a catchweight so that the fight is fought on fair ground, but I still believe that Pac wins the fight if it is fought at 147. To make a parralel, Henry Armstrong was the best WW in the world although he was at a size disadvantage aginst other WW's like Ceferino Garcia.

If Pac were defending his WBO title I would say his opponent should be allowed to fight at 147. But Pac and Floyd are fighting to show who the better p4p fighter is, not who the better WW is.

 

Seriously, I wouldn't be surprised if around 90% of boxing writers had Pac as the best of the 2000s

 

If that truly is the case when a certain boxer was the previous p4p number 1, why didn't he take his fights at a catchweight?

 

How so?

You think Pac wins if the fight is at 147, but you also feel the fight needs to be at a catchweight to be fair? That doesn't make sense. That's like me saying I'm better at basketball than you and can beat you straight up one on one, but then turn around and saying that you need to spot me 3 points in a game that goes to 11.

But if Pac is supposedly the better WW, then why would a catchweight be neccesary in a fight between Pacquiao and Mayweather?