Greatest fighter of the 2000's

[C-Lo]

This is almost exactly like what I talked about in this other thread about who is higher in the ATG lists, Pacquiao or Mayweather.

I actually feel pretty awesome that someone else sees exactly the point I'm trying to make!

[Taeth]

Roy Jones up to 2004
Pacquiao
Mayweather
Bernard Hopkins
Joe Calzaghe
JMM

are all top candidates, IMO Pacquiao has to win... for now. Mayweather could still beat him this year and that would place Floyd at #1.

My order would be
1. Pacquiao
2. Bernard Hopkins
3. Mayweather
4. Calzaghe/JMM
5. RJJ

That being said I think Roy at the turn of the millenia kicks the crap out of these other guys p4p.

[skel1983]

1. Mayweather
2. Pac
3. Hopkins
4. Calzaghe
5. JMM
6. RJJ
7. Winky
8. Mosley
9. Barrera
10. Morales


Probably left someone out but thats my list off the top of my head.

[XaduBoxer]

Are we talking about fighter of this decade (2000 to 2009) then this is my list:

1. PAC
2. PBF
3. B-Hop
4. Calzaghe
5. RJJ
6. JMM
7. Winky
8. Mosley
9. Barrera
10. Morales

Side notes: Calzaghe defeated 2 boxers in my top 10 list... PAC defeated 3 boxers in my top 10 (4th one coming soon )...
.

[JazMerkin]

Did this in another thread, but have re-evaluated a bit since.


1. Floyd Mayweather Jr.
2. Bernard Hopkins
3. Manny Pacquiao
4. Juan Manuel Marquez
5. Shane Mosley
6. Marco Antonio Barrera
7. Joe Calzaghe
8. Winky Wright
9. Erik Morales
10. Kostya Tszyu

Combination of ability & what they've done.

Narrowly missing out based on records:

Wlad & Vital Klitschko: the division has stagnated in their time & Vitali took too much time off.

Vernon Forrest: had some great wins but the KO against Mayorga hurt him how the Sanders fight hurt Wlad. But has been around the top most of the decade & beaten some top fighters.

Jose Luis Castillo: was very close, but the way he has faded in the last few years means I had to leave him out. However, was involved in my choice for the best fight of the decade against Corrales.

Diego Corrales: lost some big fights, but was never in a bad one. If I did this again he might well get in there. Certainly contributed more to the sport in way of entertainment that Wright.

Roy Jones Jr, Lennox Lewis, Oscar De La Hoya, Felix Trinidad: Felt all these guys did their best work in the previous decade & have not been dominant enough throughout for me, whilst Lennox & Tito effectively were both done by 2002. Jones would be in there but for the fact that he has carried on long past the point where it could be said he'd lost it. This is why Tszyu is in there & he isn't.

Israel Vazquez & Rafael Marquez: Have simply not done enough comparatively with the other guys, despite being in great fights.

Probably still left someone out.

On a side note, whilst I can definitely understand having Pacquiao as #1, using Merchant, who very clearly flat out hates Mayweather to support the idea, isn't a great choice. Also Mayweather didn't call Hatton his toughest opponent, he was simply complimentary post-fight. He in fact named Emmanuel Augustus as toughest guy he'd ever fought, and if you've seen the punishment Augustus took in that fight you'd understand why. The guy who gave him the hardest fight is clearly Castillo. Not saying Pac doesn't deserve to be #1, I can definitely see strong arguments why, I just think the writer could have picked better people to support the argument.

[halo1]

Pacquiao moves me....he completes me....ahihihi

Seriously, the article was a good read.

[HattonTheHammer]

1-Floyd Mayweather
2-Bernard Hopkins
3-Manny Pacquiao
4- Joe Calzaghe
5-Shane Mosley

[Fenster]

On a side note, whilst I can definitely understand having Pacquiao as #1, using Merchant, who very clearly flat out hates Mayweather to support the idea, isn't a great choice. Also Mayweather didn't call Hatton his toughest opponent, he was simply complimentary post-fight. He in fact named Emmanuel Augustus as toughest guy he'd ever fought, and if you've seen the punishment Augustus took in that fight you'd understand why. The guy who gave him the hardest fight is clearly Castillo. Not saying Pac doesn't deserve to be #1, I can definitely see strong arguments why, I just think the writer could have picked better people to support the argument.

If you think Merchant is bad.. check out boxing historian and author - Mike Silver. I thought he was a bit out-of-order calling Hatton a "club fighter" ... it turns out he also reckons Mayweather wouldn't beat ANY top welterweight contender of the 1950s and 1960s and would have lost against plenty of champs from the 70s and 80s.

He clearly doesn't rate modern boxers. I would have liked to have seen what he REALLY said about Pacquiao

[C-Lo]

The Ring Magazine's 10 Greatest fighters by decade
10: Greatest fighters by decade

Posted May. 10, 2009 at 11:48pm
By Michael Rosenthal

1990s: Roy Jones Jr. – At his best, he inspired awe. Runner up: Pernell Whitaker.

2000s: Manny Pacquiao – Sorry Floyd but you need to fight the best to be the best. Runner up: Floyd Mayweather.

Michael Rosenthal can be reached at RingTVeditor@yahoo.com

Doug Fischer contributed to this report

Wait a second.... so Floyd isn't #1 because "you need to fight the best to be the best....", but then he picks Roy Jones over Pernell Whitaker? That seems like a bit of a contradiction to me.

I thought the same exact thing! Pernell and Oscar would be the two to debate over if that were the case.

[fan johnny]

Ok, not that i think Marquez is going to win, but lets say Marquez beats PBF and turns around and beats Pacquiao? I just think it's not over until the fat lady sings!

[JazMerkin]

On a side note, whilst I can definitely understand having Pacquiao as #1, using Merchant, who very clearly flat out hates Mayweather to support the idea, isn't a great choice. Also Mayweather didn't call Hatton his toughest opponent, he was simply complimentary post-fight. He in fact named Emmanuel Augustus as toughest guy he'd ever fought, and if you've seen the punishment Augustus took in that fight you'd understand why. The guy who gave him the hardest fight is clearly Castillo. Not saying Pac doesn't deserve to be #1, I can definitely see strong arguments why, I just think the writer could have picked better people to support the argument.

If you think Merchant is bad.. check out boxing historian and author - Mike Silver. I thought he was a bit out-of-order calling Hatton a "club fighter" ... it turns out he also reckons Mayweather wouldn't beat ANY top welterweight contender of the 1950s and 1960s and would have lost against plenty of champs from the 70s and 80s.

He clearly doesn't rate modern boxers. I would have liked to have seen what he REALLY said about Pacquiao

Yeah, I didn't dig into it, but it didn't look like the best supporting argument. I mean Merchant & Mayweather so obviously flat out hate each other that using one as judgement of the other's abilities is just stupid. I think to say he wouldn't beat any top contender of that time shows this guy is a joke, one of those people who likes to romantacize the old days a bit much. Then you have guys who refuse to give ANY credit to boxers from the past because things have apparently 'improved'

He probably said that Pancho Villa would have murdered Pacquiao in the 1st second of the 1st round