Will Floyd Mayweather Be The Best Fighter of this Decade if He beats Pac in 2010?

If he would accomplish something like this that would be great. He would clearly be the best of this era and would leave no doubts about his legacy. He does have the ability to do it, and would be the favorite in these fights.

 

So in one breath you're saying Mayweather vs. Mosley is THE fight, then in the next breath you're saying that Cotto isn't top tier... yet he holds a win over Mosley? Which is it? If Cotto isn't top tier and yet he beat Mosley... what is Mosley, a B- fighter?

 

Well, then why not include fights that happened in 1999? In which case, we're just not talking about the decade in question. Seems overly picky or strict, but if we're talking 2000-2009, it has to stay that way. That said, Floyd vs. Manny is going to determine the best fighter of this ERA.

 

Void is void.

 

No, because he won't beat Pac!

 

Styles make fights...Mosley would be any easy win for the money man, dude. Mosley, despite all of his physical gifts, has never been an effective aggressor and would ultimately lose a one sided decision to Floyd.

Pac is Floyd's toughest fight at the moment.

the most fan pleasing fight would be Pac/Mosley...Pac could lose this one.

 

Mosley has been more consistent throughout his career, has beaten better opponents, and as of recent, has looked like the better fighter.

You are right that there is some illogic in my logic, but that is always the case when you have the "A beats B, B beats C, C beats A" thing that typically happens in boxing.

To put it simply, do you feel that Cotto has the same chance of beating Mayweather that Mosley does?

Edit : And I am not trying to downgrade Cotto at all, I just simply don't think that he is going to go much further in his career then he has, while I still feel that Mosley has that intangible thing about him that will make him at the very least, a good challenge for Floyd or Pacman.

 

Thatn is why you are a newbie. A>B>C, therefore A>C does not apply in boxing. In logic, it is logical but not in boxing.

 

Well, the decade does end in 2009 as other posters have mentioned so if we gotta draw a line somewhere, their fight would have no bearing on the fighter of the decade honors :yep Really, it's Mayweather's fault anyway that he spent nearly 2 years of the decade "retired", and right before the time when the WW division was starting to get really hot too...

But if we were to include the fight, I would say it depends on how Mayweather defeats Pac. If he totally humiliates/dominates Pac, then PBF has a strong case based mainly on ability and less on resume (Pac's resume will still be better IMO). But if it's a close fight or if Floyd sticks to strictly outpointing Pac while maintaining a low output, I'd still go for Pac.

I don't think Mayweather's resume is strong enough compared to Pac. Mayweather's resume was at it's best below 140, and even then Pac's resume below 140 is still better that Mayweather's resume below 140. So he really has to impress people in the Pac fight to have a case.

 

I remember it differently. I remember the "Brits" over-hyping Ricky. Definitely. I remember the America-centric Floyd crowd opining that that Ricky was an over protected hypejob, like they still do with Calzaghe. My impression is that Ricky has become respectable in the eyes of Floyd fans ONLY because Floyd beat him.

Hmmm. Interesting. I'm sure you have a great answer for this, but how exactly is PBF's 10th round KO as convincing as Manny's 2nd Rnd KO ( 2 KD's in the first round, comatosed in the second)?? Didn't Floyd say afterwards Ricky gave him his toughest fight??