Re: Who will be seen as the greatest fighter between 2001-2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by superheavyrhun
Quote:
Originally Posted by Violent Demise
For Haye to be P4P he'll have to unify the Cruiserweight and Heavyweight divisions. Good luck with that. He might have the punch to do it. But I doubt he has the chin or stamina to do it.
I think the one worry I have about Haye is his stamina. His only 12-rounder was at a very slow pace, and put me off him for a while, especially in a fight where I thought Haye could have gone out and KO'd his man if he really stepped on the gas. As for chin, he proved a lot of that last time out, where he did ship a couple of big punches, and looked in a bit of bother, but pulled through to win well, getting cut for the first time in his career in the process.
The punch is his biggest asset at the moment, and we'll see against Mormeck whether he can use it intelligently as well as just banging people out of his path.
Believe it or not, I actually like Haye. I think he's a good fighter. He really impressed me in his last fight when he destroyed the usually durable Tomasz Bonin in one round. I'm picking against him when he fights Mormeck. But that's based on the fact that it's a Cruiserweight fight. Haye fought at over 230 pounds in his last fight. Now he's suppose to come all the way down to 200? I can't see him doing that without it having some kind of affect on him
Re: Who will be seen as the greatest fighter between 2001-2010
2010 is a long way from now especially in boxing years. If you were to decide today it would more then likely go to Floyd Mayweather but then again we are talking a whole decade. From now until then I think a few more names will be on the list and a few taken off. Juan Manuel Marquez is a name we might see.
It also depends on who you ask and what they determine as greatest. I am suprised Oscar De La Hoya is not on the list. He has lost some of his last big fights but then again who has had more big fights then Oscar? A very hard question to answer.
Re: Who will be seen as the greatest fighter between 2001-2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Body Puncher
I am suprised Oscar De La Hoya is not on the list. He has lost some of his last big fights but then again who has had more big fights then Oscar? A very hard question to answer.
Oscar has only won one big fight all decade, which was his win over Vargas. What has he done to be worthy of Fighter of the Decade status?
Re: Who will be seen as the greatest fighter between 2001-2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by SweetPea
Quote:
Originally Posted by Body Puncher
I am suprised Oscar De La Hoya is not on the list. He has lost some of his last big fights but then again who has had more big fights then Oscar? A very hard question to answer.
Oscar has only won one big fight all decade, which was his win over Vargas.
What has he done to be worthy of Fighter of the Decade status?
Make a lot of fucking money. He might not be fighter of the decade. But he's clearly boxings businessman of the decade
Re: Who will be seen as the greatest fighter between 2001-2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by SweetPea
Quote:
Originally Posted by Body Puncher
I am suprised Oscar De La Hoya is not on the list. He has lost some of his last big fights but then again who has had more big fights then Oscar? A very hard question to answer.
Oscar has only won one big fight all decade, which was his win over Vargas. What has he done to be worthy of Fighter of the Decade status?
Tho I don't agree that ODLH should be listed.
The titles in different divisions must hold some type of weight right?
Re: Who will be seen as the greatest fighter between 2001-2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by CutMeMick
Quote:
Originally Posted by SweetPea
Quote:
Originally Posted by Body Puncher
I am suprised Oscar De La Hoya is not on the list. He has lost some of his last big fights but then again who has had more big fights then Oscar? A very hard question to answer.
Oscar has only won one big fight all decade, which was his win over Vargas. What has he done to be worthy of Fighter of the Decade status?
Tho I don't agree that ODLH should be listed.
The titles in different divisions must hold some type of weight right?
But in the 2001-2010 timeframe that we're discussing... Oscar has only won titles at 154 and 160, and the 160 title wasn't a real title. Hopkins was the real champ, DLH won a cheap belt in a fight many people thought he lost.
Oscar's multiple titles occurred in the 90s for the most part.
Re: Who will be seen as the greatest fighter between 2001-2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by SweetPea
Quote:
Originally Posted by CutMeMick
Quote:
Originally Posted by SweetPea
Quote:
Originally Posted by Body Puncher
I am suprised Oscar De La Hoya is not on the list. He has lost some of his last big fights but then again who has had more big fights then Oscar? A very hard question to answer.
Oscar has only won one big fight all decade, which was his win over Vargas. What has he done to be worthy of Fighter of the Decade status?
Tho I don't agree that ODLH should be listed.
The titles in different divisions must hold some type of weight right?
But in the 2001-2010 timeframe that we're discussing... Oscar has only won titles at 154 and 160, and the 160 title wasn't a real title. Hopkins was the real champ, DLH won a cheap belt in a fight many people thought he lost.
Oscar's multiple titles occurred in the 90s for the most part.
I see your point SweetPea.....
With that said then you'd also have to cut off more then half of the 1st part of PBFs career which include big wins as a SuperFeather and a title there.
Re: Who will be seen as the greatest fighter between 2001-2010
I think Paul Williams cleans out the 147 and 154 divisions. His physical advantages and unusual style will just be too much at those weights. He will be in the discussion for best of the decade if he does that.
Re: Who will be seen as the greatest fighter between 2001-2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Julius "Marvelous" Rain
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr140
That is a opinion not a fact so please do not start that discussion up please Bhop lost both they were close but he lost that all there is to it
:coolclick: plus even though some may think bhop won, he still didn't and can't beat j.t how pavlik pummeled him. so theres no arguement. pavlik did what bhop couldn't.
Love Pavlik.....One of the best stories in a long time and He will benefit the sport big time.Its all subjective but the comparisons are transparent IMO.
Pavlik is a walk you down two fisted assailant ,wears his heart on his sleeve.While hes at top of division he'll be a serious force and threat that can/will beat the best....so lets just wait and see what Pavlik has YET to do as opposed to what Hopkins Has Already DONE.
Re: Who will be seen as the greatest fighter between 2001-2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by SweetPea
Quote:
Originally Posted by Body Puncher
I am suprised Oscar De La Hoya is not on the list. He has lost some of his last big fights but then again who has had more big fights then Oscar? A very hard question to answer.
Oscar has only won one big fight all decade, which was his win over Vargas. What has he done to be worthy of Fighter of the Decade status?
That is very true. Thats is why I said it depends on who's list. Some people consider a guy who has a 40-0 record lets say with only 2 or 3 big fights on it a great fighter. Some might consider a guy like Oscar who has lost most of his last fights but because he has been in the big fights running with the head of the pack for so long. Like Nascar you don't have to win all the races to win the season. Everyone looks at things different.
As I said at first 2010 is a long way away, we have all seen guys go from top of the food chain to the bottom in just a few bouts and vice versa. This is a crazy sport the way that works. It is kind of like the pound for pound list that are always argued about. Opinion on what makes a fighter great varies so much.
Does a fighter who had a great 2001-2006 then retire after winning 4 or 5 world titles get the same consideration as the guy who has a great 2006-2010? This sport has a very short memory in terms of accomplishment. How many times have we seen a fighter go unappreciated until 10 or 20 years after retirement then suddenly he is an all time great.
I used Oscar De La Hoya because he has steadily been one of the sports most constant big fight names win or lose. It is to early to tell what can happen between now and 2010. For me at least
Re: Who will be seen as the greatest fighter between 2001-2010
Re: Who will be seen as the greatest fighter between 2001-2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Julius "Marvelous" Rain
Quote:
Originally Posted by penalosafan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Julius "Marvelous" Rain
i think pavlik is a legend in the making, by 2010 the guy could be undisputed champion at any weight he chooses.
Who's he???!!! ::** ::** ;D
the guy that knocked out edison miranda and jermain taylor in under 8th rounds, ooh and the guy that beat who bhop couldn't, atleast not how he beat jermain taylor. im not suprise though, out side of pac topics you need to be filled in ;)
He's a boxer!?? I though he was a Halloween character. ::** ::** ;)
Hey Julius, or any other pac-fans: why are many pac-fans suddenly dumping him (I didn't mean you though, Julius)? :( Believe me he did a superb boxing job against Marco who's supposedly a better technical fighter, and I said superb, more better than other so-called 'skilled' fighters (I ain't naming names here though cuz I don't want to start some stupid fights). They've all gone MIA or AWOL. C'mon guyz, get your butts back out here. I never gave those SC's but now I'm tempted to give you guys one if you don't show up. Where are they?
Re: Who will be seen as the greatest fighter between 2001-2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by penalosafan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Julius "Marvelous" Rain
Quote:
Originally Posted by penalosafan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Julius "Marvelous" Rain
i think pavlik is a legend in the making, by 2010 the guy could be undisputed champion at any weight he chooses.
Who's he???!!! ::** ::** ;D
the guy that knocked out edison miranda and jermain taylor in under 8th rounds, ooh and the guy that beat who bhop couldn't, atleast not how he beat jermain taylor. im not suprise though, out side of pac topics you need to be filled in ;)
He's a boxer!?? I though he was a Halloween character. ::** ::** ;)
Hey Julius, or any other pac-fans: why are many pac-fans suddenly dumping him (I didn't mean you though, Julius)? :( Believe me he did a superb boxing job against Marco who's supposedly a better technical fighter, and I said
superb, more better than other so-called 'skilled' fighters (I ain't naming names here though cuz I don't want to start some stupid fights). They've all gone MIA or AWOL. C'mon guyz, get your butts back out here. I never gave those SC's but now I'm tempted to give you guys one if you don't show up. Where are they?
i don't think anyone is dumping pac ??? i'm just not one of those pacfans who always talks about pac. if you read my past post about the pac mab rematch, you will see i stated that pac beat mab in a technical match and he beat him more convincingly then jmm did.
back to pavlik though, yes his a boxer and a hella of a fighter too.
Re: Who will be seen as the greatest fighter between 2001-2010
Come on CUTMEMICK, tho i admire u as a great poster, and i understand what u mean about THE CAT i find it hard to believe that Haye will ever be p4p number 1. As VD said he'd have to unify cruiser and HW, and as lon as big Wladdy is around that aint gonna happen. I think Mormeck might even beat him. So yes it is possible Haye will be P4P number 1 but the odds are probably 500 to 1, and there is no way he'll be the seen as the greatest fighter of this decade. So there was no point mentioning him in this thread.
CC for sharing your thoughts rather than just SCing me like most do these days.
Re: Who will be seen as the greatest fighter between 2001-2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by CutMeMick
Quote:
Originally Posted by SweetPea
But in the 2001-2010 timeframe that we're discussing... Oscar has only won titles at 154 and 160, and the 160 title wasn't a real title. Hopkins was the real champ, DLH won a cheap belt in a fight many people thought he lost.
Oscar's multiple titles occurred in the 90s for the most part.
I see your point SweetPea.....
With that said then you'd also have to cut off more then half of the 1st part of PBFs career which include big wins as a SuperFeather and a title there.
Floyds biggest win as SFW IMO was against Corrales (33-0!), and that was in 2001. Which is also to say that Floyd has won (or at least defended) all his titles within the 2001-2010 timeframe.
One thing that I haven't seen anyone mention yet is that Floyds age fits this timeframe perfectly. He was 24 in 2001, 34 in 2010 - basically in his prime throughout the whole decade. Pavlik, for one, doesnt have this advantage (and will not have it in the next decade either). JMM, Morales, Barrera, Mosley, Calzaghe (to mention a few possible names) might all be past it by 2010, while Cotto didn't debut until 2001.
Pacquaio basically has the same age as Floyd, and he seems like the only real competitor for PBF's title in this regard. Although PBF in my view is head and shoulders ahead.
