Pac still won. Scorecards are don't mean anything when you win by convincing KO. To even bring it up shows desperation. To even suggest Pac should have fought Raheem is ******ed. Raheem was a lightweight while Pac just had his first fight at 130 with Morales. Raheem's win over Morales was a fluke as Erik took him lightly. The proof is Raheem's very next fight, where he lost by decision to a pure brawler Acelino Freitas. If Pac fought Raheem instead, you'd just say he ducked a rematch with Morales. It would also be financially a ******ed move as few would be interested to watch Raheem in a PPV fight.
maybe but he doesnt have the resume in the 00's to claim he is better than pac which is the main criteria when choosing the fighter of the decade.
He fought on the same card as morales that night and choose to avenge his loss against morales at 130 in a bigger money fight, than jump up and face raheem right away. THen people would claim he was scared of morales anyway. Plus raheem lost right after and was out of the picture. Guzman could have been an opponent but arum decided to keep it inhouse vs diaz. Same with cotto by the way hence mosley didnt happen
By your logic the fact that gamboa was losing to amateur's while this was going on should mean that he'll never ammount to anything in boxing, which is almost as ******ed as your opinions on pac's early losses. Also around the time of pacs first loss, Mayweather was dropping am decisions to todorov and sanchez, which is just as irrelevant as pacs early losses, as i'm sure you'll argue that the gamboa and mayweather of today aren't the same as they were then. Well the same surely applies to pacquiao, just because he turned pro prematurely and didnt have access to a US promoter who could shelter his precious gem (Floyd) or lived in a communist regime that made him miss what should have been the prime of his pro career (gamboa) doesn't make him less of a fighter now. No-one cares for your blanket statements without logic.
It obviously is debatable dick'ed, otherwise people wouldn't have been debating it for 3 years straight. Just because you don't want to debate it, doesn't mean it's not debatable. Idiot.
um to be honest I have never read the actual criteria for fighter of the decade so maybe I need to do that. But his resume for the decade is good enough to claim he is better than pac I think. But like I said there could be other factors.
Nobody outside of Floyd's most ardent fans think his resume is greater than Pac's. I'm a Cotto fan and had no problem with Pac being named fighter of the decade. Admitting ignorance is a good first step. Now go learn the rules before making statements.
What's all the fuss about Hopkins?, he lost his first fight to some unknown! You're idiotic if you can't see what's special about him already and your level of idiocy is too low for anyone to try and explain.