nebular wrote:
This year smaller pacman fought 2 bigger men on their weight classes.
This year pacman showed tremendous skills, heart, strength, gentleman and class and re-define what sweet science is all about.
This year pacman won a historic 8 titles in different divisions never been done before in the history of boxing.
This year a congressman (politician) was seen fighting inside the ring against professional boxers.
The award of fighter of the year tells all about a historic moments for the year I believe. Martinez' accomplishment for beating Pavlik and KOing Williams is awesome of course but not historic since there are lots of underdog boxers before who have upset topdogs... like Douglas to Tyson, Turpin vs Robinson, Rahman Vs Lennox Lewis,Tarvar Vs Jones 2 and many more but the winners thereof never get the Fighter of the Year award.
Fighter of the Year = History
Have these been done before? Did this boxer showed a meaningful performance that caught the attention of the world and carried the torch of boxing as a sport for this year and made the sport alive again? These are questions that should be answer in choosing and I don't think people would settle for remembering a fighter for just a mere upset or lucky punch. (I've posted this on someone's topic and just added few words here)
Pac was not obliged to fight bigger opponents. And if he lost? The reason because he fought bigger guys. Not even Margarito / Clottey deserve a huge applause should they beaten Pac because they were naturally bigger.
Fighter of the year = history?
how about
Fighter of the Year = Fighting at Catchweights???

Be fair enough with Martinez. He fought Williams without catchweight and defeated Pavlik too. Both his opponents were highly ranked as compared to the cheater Margarito.