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)
Many of us don't know the criteria of choosing Fighter of the Year, nevertheless, it seems that if I may judge a performance of one fighter there is a certain percentage for every criteria to consider, like:
Knockout ? %
Ring aggressiveness ? %
Gate attendance & PPV ? %
Size disparity ? %
Manner of beating ? %
Style ? %
Media support ? %
P4P status ? %
TS is right, but it will all depend how they will put the weigh on Pacquiao and Martinez