A Look Back at Mayweather-Alvarez: Part One by Thomas Hauser

First topic message reminder :

Can't see Truss being happy with this:

http://www.thesweetscience.com/news/articles-frontpage/17280-a-look-back-at-mayweather-alvarez-part-one

"Also, as great a fighter as Mayweather is, there’s one flaw on his resume. He has consistently avoided the best available opposition.

A fighter doesn’t have to be bloodied and knocked down and come off the canvas to prove his greatness. A fighter can also prove that he has the heart of a legendary champion by testing himself against the best available competition.

Mayweather has done neither.

Floyd said earlier this month, “I push myself to the limit by fighting the best.”

That has all the sincerity of posturing by a political candidate.

Mayweather has some outstanding victories on his ring record. But his career has been marked by the avoidance of tough opponents in their prime.

There always seems to be someone who Mayweather is ducking. The most notable example was his several-year avoidance of Manny Pacquiao. Bob Arum (Pacquiao’s promoter) might not have wanted the fight. But Manny clearly did. And it appeared as though Floyd didn’t.

Mayweather also steered clear of Paul Williams, Antonio Margarito, and Miguel Cotto in their prime. He waited to fight Cotto until Miguel (like Shane Mosley) was a shell of his former self. Then Floyd made a show of saying that he’d fight Cotto at 154 pounds so Miguel would be at his best. But when Sergio Martinez offered to come down to 154, Floyd said that he’d only fight Martinez at 150 (an impossible weight for Sergio to make).

Thus, Frank Lotierzo writes, “Mayweather has picked his spots in one way or another throughout his career. Floyd got over big time on Juan Manuel Marquez with his weigh-in trickery at the last moment. He fought Oscar De La Hoya and barely won when Oscar was a corpse. Shane Mosley was an empty package when he finally fought him seven years after the fight truly meant anything. As terrific as Mayweather is, he's not the Bible of boxing the way he projects himself as being. He came along when there were some other outstanding fighters at or near his weight. Yet, aside from the late Diego Corrales, he has never met any of them when the fight would have confirmed his greatness. It would be great to write about Mayweather and laud all that he has accomplished as a fighter without bringing up these inconvenient facts. But it can't be done if you're being intellectually honest.”

“Mayweather,” Lotierzo continues, “wouldn't be the face of boxing today if there was an Ali, Leonard, De La Hoya, or Tyson around. But they're long gone. Give him credit for being able to make a safety-first counter-puncher who avoided the only fight fans wanted him to deliver [into] the face of what once was the greatest sport in the world.”"

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Despite the expert opinion offering absolutely nothing and being stuck in the past, just look at the listings and you'll notice how low post 90's fighters are.

No post 90s fighter would crack a top ten so it's moot.

What about top 20/30, what about Whitaker, Jones and Hopkins having laughable positions?

Whitaker tends to get in the mix. It would be tough for Jones to make a top 20. Hopkins and Floyd have added to their careers since a fair few of those lists but they won't ever crack a top ten. Possibly top 30.

So largely they're irrelevant because they were written years ago, Whitaker is rarely in the mix he's often down in the 40's and 50's.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:It is correct, in your haste to criticise Mayweather you've got lost in your own argument.

The quote backs this passage:

"A fighter doesn’t have to be bloodied and knocked down and come off the canvas to prove his greatness. A fighter can also prove that he has the heart of a legendary champion by testing himself against the best available competition.

Mayweather has done neither.

Floyd said earlier this month, “I push myself to the limit by fighting the best.”

That has all the sincerity of posturing by a political candidate."

Floyd doesn't test himself or push himself to the limit (by his own admission).

Hammersmith harrier wrote:So largely they're irrelevant because they were written years ago, Whitaker is rarely in the mix he's often down in the 40's and 50's.

Not in any of the more recent lists I've seen. Ring had him top ten, BN top 20 for instance.

All of this bickering and not one post offering a solid counter-argument to Hauser.

Standard.

Mainly because I couldn't give a damn what these experts say, I prefer to use my own eyes and make my own mind up.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Mainly because I couldn't give a damn what these experts say, I prefer to use my own eyes and make my own mind up.

Which perhaps explains your narrow perspective.

It's not narrow it's my opinion. I used to be a music journalist despite my often appalling grammar but at no point did that make my opinion right. I once called Devildriver the worst live band I'd ever seen but others disagreed, am I automatically right because I got paid for that opinion? Of course not, each person has a different perspective and I trust mine more than hausers.

Boxing lists are a waste of time. They mean nothing. Theres no way of knowing and no way of being accurate. Once you figure that out you wont lose too much sleep over them.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:It's not narrow it's my opinion. I used to be a music journalist despite my often appalling grammar but at no point did that make my opinion right. I once called Devildriver the worst live band I'd ever seen but others disagreed, am I automatically right because I got paid for that opinion? Of course not, each person has a different perspective and I trust mine more than hausers.

After much thought I'm gonna stick with Hauser on this one buddy.

Not able to think for yourself then Haz.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Not able to think for yourself then Haz.

No. I merely regurgitate the opinions of others and know nothing about boxing.

And you've missed the question mark.

You're welcome.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I'm a big fan of the old timers but Jones and Hopkins don't get a fair shake in these supposedly respected lists you post, the likes of Hauser and Sugar are stuck in the past. How can you take Bert Sugar seriously when he has Jake LaMotta at 27, Ketchel at 19, Dempsey at 9 then Whitaker down at 48, Jones at 88 and Hopkins at 91. You have to largely take these things with a pinch of salt

Saw Sugar try to explain/rationalise his fairly pony Top20 HW list and was full of rubbish. I'm sure he did something to gain respect in the past but he's only trotted out now as a 'character' because of his silly hat and cigar (which he had in this interview even though it was not lit as it was in a tv studio!!! TW*T)

It would be creepy if they were still trotting out Sugar these days

Well you know what I mean!!

Strongback wrote:So Trussy, when Hauser is writing about Ali he is great but when he writes about Floyd he don't know sh1t.

Ridiculous.


You're flip floppin' around........all over town.

Dear oh dear........I regard Ali as great.........I don't need hauser to tell me...........

Just stop.........

Nope, Hauser is only great when he agrees with you.

On Floyd he's an old fuddy duddy.

Or more likely you only listen to Hauser because he backs up your opinion, why not take into account the views of current writers mainly because they wouldn't back up your claims.

Strongback wrote:Nope, Hauser is only great when he agrees with you..

Show me where I've intimated he's great If he agrees with me or stop lying and p**s off.......

Tired of you misrepresenting me all the time.........All you do is lie...

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Stop lying and p**s off.......

Tired of you misrepresenting me all the time.........All you do is lie...

Off to Boston for xmas then Truss? Been a while since you have been there aint it...

f**k off...This kid keeps bringing this Boston stuff up all the time and I'm bored with it and him.........Can you ask him to stop.......

irritating not insulting........I don't need it.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Or more likely you only listen to Hauser because he backs up your opinion, why not take into account the views of current writers mainly because they wouldn't back up your claims.

Name one.

Bit below the belt steff

Ok Truss I wont mention Boston again. Would rather talk about your support for Man City anyway, or the championship darts you watch or your good knowledge of 1980s politics in the UK etc

No more talk of your Americanness

Steffan wrote:

No more talk of your Americanness

You've got nothing to say anyway........Please though If you want to make allegations back them up.........There are 8 years worth of posts and threads to find a contradiction.........

No offfence but I had all this crap back on the old 606...........and it bores me........

How a University student can't understand that with a huge Irish American population of which I'm one we don't have Darts or soccer is beyond me..

hazharrison wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Or more likely you only listen to Hauser because he backs up your opinion, why not take into account the views of current writers mainly because they wouldn't back up your claims.

Name one.

I'm going to guess someone like Paulie Malignaggi isn't expert enough for you.

Can we talk boxing please. Have no desire to start deleting comments or locking threads, it gets very tedious for me.

This is my problem with selecting your experts haz............Archie Moore didn't rate Joe Louis........However Bert Sugar did........

It's a poor argument to say well "I'll Stick with the experts"..........Because in most court cases you have Doctors testifying for the defence and the prosecution.....

D4 was an expert at picking sources...........and you're much better than that squirt..

Rowley wrote:Can we talk boxing please. Have no desire to start deleting comments or locking threads, it gets very tedious for me.

Fine by me..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Strongback wrote:Nope, Hauser is only great when he agrees with you..

Show me where I've intimated he's great If he agrees with me or stop lying and p**s off.......

Tired of you misrepresenting me all the time.........All you do is lie...

Are you saying you are not a Hauser fan?

You have quoted him on Ali in the past when waxing lyrically about your all time favourite fighter The Lip.


I know you are losing the debate when you call me a liar and start cursing.

Ali isn't my alltime favorite fighter.........Curry is........

and I said it was a well researched book.............

and I'm losing the debate........

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Ali isn't my alltime favorite fighter.........Curry is........

and I said it was a well researched book.............

and I'm losing the debate........

You don't fight like an alley cat to ensure Curry is seen as an ATG. Ali being the greatest of all time you do. Running down Robinson and Louis etc.


Anyway it seems clear Hauser's opinion on Floyd doesn't have your "well researched" seal of approval.

Changing the goal posts......

People who have Robbo at number 1 have to like him do they ???

Hauser's well researched book was me pointing out it was a labour of love for him....and his heart is in the 60/70s.....

You jumped to conclusions.......

Poor stuff Mate.........But at least you are consistent.

I saw it that you were excusing Hauser's opinion on Floyd because he is an old timer and doesn't appreciate anything new.

It does matter where Hauser's head is at, he knows a cherry picker when he sees one.

He's just calling Floyd out for what he is.

I was saying Hauser is one of a multitude of so called experts who don't declare their agenda when marking down certain fighters and I used his glowing book of the Ali period as a reading of where his heart is.........We all have agendas......No one is completely objective about high profile fighters.......

I never used the fact Hauser rates Ali like I do as a reason I'm right to rate Ali highly.....

To me his opinion is irrelevant..

Or to say he's wrong in his opinion of Floyd..only that it's fair to note his background and position........

My point is that Haz like you throw around arguments that must be right because some wally "expert" from the past agrees with you........

My point is experts like Sugar have Louis high up in p4pers and guys Like moore don't rate Louis.....

Futch thought little of Lewis..Foreman thought highly of him..

So it's a redundant exercise being selective with experts........

I suppose we just have to read the parts of an experts opinion we like and ignore the other parts we don't.

Hauser is right about alot of what he says but its pretty hard to knock the Alvarez fight. Easy to do it in hindsight but it comes across as as having an agenda when you write a thesus criticising Mayweather right after an excellent performance in a fight that captured the public imagination between the two best fighters in a weight class and giving away about a stone in weight on the night. The lady doth protest too much.

Strongback wrote:I suppose we just have to read the parts of an experts opinion we like and ignore the other parts we don't.

Which is exactly what you're doing yourself, you bring up Hauser because he has the same stance as you, what about Malignaggi, Nelson or the countless other recent and current boxers who think Mayweather is the greatest?

Malignaggi has a big advantage over Hauser in that he is a boxer so knows the ins and out of the sport a fair bit better as well as sharing a ring with the likes of Cotto and Hatton.

Mayweather did not fight every single top rated opponent he could have, that much is clear. Even the most intransigent of Floyd fans must acknowledge as much.

Still, what an overtly one-sided article. It is a cliche, yet it remains true, that one can pick holes in any fighters record. There are few, if any fighters, who can legitimately claim to have fought absolutely everyone who could ever have been considered a threat to him.

Mayweather should have fought Cotto after he beat Hatton, and he should have fought Pacquiao. Those are the two fights missing from his ledger. He could have fought Williams and Marg, and his record would have looked the better for it. However, in 50 years time, no one will be eulogising over the skills of Margarito or Williams. I would liked to have seen the Williams fight, purely due to his unusual physique, but let us not pretend that Mayweather ducked a future ATG. He decided not to take on a low risk / high reward fighter with a, relatively, modest championship record. He is hardly the only fighter to have done that.

A Margarito fight would have been a demolition job, he is a footnote in boxing history. Berating Mayweather for having failed to take him on smacks of desperation.

Mayweather ought to have fought Pacquiao. The fact that he did not do so harms his legacy, as it does Pacquiao's. However, I have no time for apologists who claim that Pacquiao was under no obligation to take a blood test. It is likely that Mayweather only stipulated that the test be taken in order to unsettle Pacquiao's camp. Nevertheless, the idea that a boxer can legitimately refuse a fight, purely because he does not wish to take a drugs test, is disgraceful.

Mayweather, like every other professional fighter, has the absolute right to guarantee that any opponent of his has not gained an unfair advantage. I appreciate that it is a bit melodramatic to state it, but people have died in the ring.

Would it be acceptable for Pacquiao to flatly refuse to allow his hand wraps to be inspected prior to fighting?

Gentleman01 wrote:Mayweather did not fight every single top rated opponent he could have, that much is clear. Even the most intransigent of Floyd fans must acknowledge as much.

Still, what an overtly one-sided article. It is a cliche, yet it remains true, that one can pick holes in any fighters record. There are few, if any fighters, who can legitimately claim to have fought absolutely everyone who could ever have been considered a threat to him.

Mayweather should have fought Cotto after he beat Hatton, and he should have fought Pacquiao. Those are the two fights missing from his ledger. He could have fought Williams and Marg, and his record would have looked the better for it. However, in 50 years time, no one will be eulogising over the skills of Margarito or Williams. I would liked to have seen the Williams fight, purely due to his unusual physique, but let us not pretend that Mayweather ducked a future ATG. He decided not to take on a low risk / high reward fighter with a, relatively, modest championship record. He is hardly the only fighter to have done that.

A Margarito fight would have been a demolition job, he is a footnote in boxing history. Berating Mayweather for having failed to take him on smacks of desperation.

Mayweather ought to have fought Pacquiao. The fact that he did not do so harms his legacy, as it does Pacquiao's. However, I have no time for apologists who claim that Pacquiao was under no obligation to take a blood test. It is likely that Mayweather only stipulated that the test be taken in order to unsettle Pacquiao's camp. Nevertheless, the idea that a boxer can legitimately refuse a fight, purely because he does not wish to take a drugs test, is disgraceful.

Mayweather, like every other professional fighter, has the absolute right to guarantee that any opponent of his has not gained an unfair advantage. I appreciate that it is a bit melodramatic to state it, but people have died in the ring.

Would it be acceptable for Pacquiao to flatly refuse to allow his hand wraps to be inspected prior to fighting?

True sir, true. People used to think Marciano was a bum.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Or more likely you only listen to Hauser because he backs up your opinion, why not take into account the views of current writers mainly because they wouldn't back up your claims.

Name one.

I'm going to guess someone like Paulie Malignaggi isn't expert enough for you.

You'd be correct.

So basically someone is only an expert if they agree with you?

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:This is my problem with selecting your experts haz............Archie Moore didn't rate Joe Louis........However Bert Sugar did........

It's a poor argument to say well "I'll Stick with the experts"..........Because in most court cases you have Doctors testifying for the defence and the prosecution.....

D4 was an expert at picking sources...........and you're much better than that squirt..

I'm not cleverly selecting sources. I don't have a source that backs up your argument is all.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:So basically someone is only an expert if they agree with you?

No. Usually it's if they're an expert.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I was saying Hauser is one of a multitude of so called experts who don't declare their agenda when marking down certain fighters and I used his glowing book of the Ali period as a reading of where his heart is.........We all have agendas......No one is completely objective about high profile fighters.......

I never used the fact Hauser rates Ali like I do as a reason I'm right to rate Ali highly.....

To me his opinion is irrelevant..

Or to say he's wrong in his opinion of Floyd..only that it's fair to note his background and position........

My point is that Haz like you throw around arguments that must be right because some wally "expert" from the past agrees with you........

My point is experts like Sugar have Louis high up in p4pers and guys Like moore don't rate Louis.....

Futch thought little of Lewis..Foreman thought highly of him..

So it's a redundant exercise being selective with experts........

Hauser is a contemporary expert -- you should check out his writing, excellent stuff.

espn.go.com/blog/new-york/boxing/post/_/id/4758/malignaggi-floyd-mayweather-is-best-ever

sportsillustrated.cnn.com/mma/news/20130915/mayweather-jr-all-time-great/

Gentleman01 wrote:Mayweather did not fight every single top rated opponent he could have, that much is clear. Even the most intransigent of Floyd fans must acknowledge as much.

Still, what an overtly one-sided article. It is a cliche, yet it remains true, that one can pick holes in any fighters record. There are few, if any fighters, who can legitimately claim to have fought absolutely everyone who could ever have been considered a threat to him.

Mayweather should have fought Cotto after he beat Hatton, and he should have fought Pacquiao. Those are the two fights missing from his ledger. He could have fought Williams and Marg, and his record would have looked the better for it. However, in 50 years time, no one will be eulogising over the skills of Margarito or Williams. I would liked to have seen the Williams fight, purely due to his unusual physique, but let us not pretend that Mayweather ducked a future ATG. He decided not to take on a low risk / high reward fighter with a, relatively, modest championship record. He is hardly the only fighter to have done that.

A Margarito fight would have been a demolition job, he is a footnote in boxing history. Berating Mayweather for having failed to take him on smacks of desperation.

Mayweather ought to have fought Pacquiao. The fact that he did not do so harms his legacy, as it does Pacquiao's. However, I have no time for apologists who claim that Pacquiao was under no obligation to take a blood test. It is likely that Mayweather only stipulated that the test be taken in order to unsettle Pacquiao's camp. Nevertheless, the idea that a boxer can legitimately refuse a fight, purely because he does not wish to take a drugs test, is disgraceful.

Mayweather, like every other professional fighter, has the absolute right to guarantee that any opponent of his has not gained an unfair advantage. I appreciate that it is a bit melodramatic to state it, but people have died in the ring.

Would it be acceptable for Pacquiao to flatly refuse to allow his hand wraps to be inspected prior to fighting?

So you agree that the fights missing from his ledger are precisely the fighters who would have given him his toughest fights -- but don't apportion any blame for that to Floyd?

If a faded Cotto -- above his best weight -- could push Floyd close, and a fossilised Mosley could have him in desperate trouble, it seems perfectly logical that those fighters could have beaten him, or at least provided a defining challenge nearer their best (both were still handy in '07 when Floyd took a break rather than trying to take over an extremely talent-laden 147 lbs.).

These boards are a strange zone -- I've never come across as many Floyd fans and apologists.

Or maybe it's about time to realise you and Strongback are in the minority here.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Or maybe it's about time to realise you and Strongback are in the minority here.

That much is obvious. That doesn't render my argument a lesser one. Grasping at straws with those links -- one guy (I've never heard of) states he's good enough to have fought the greats (possibly not beating them) but hasn't faced the same opposition.

The second is Malignaggi.

Blew me away there.

You only care if it's something you agree with so this whole discussion is pointless, I couldn't give a rats arse what Hauser thinks, nor do I really care what Malignaggi thinks. The difference is though it's such a narrow minded view to think you have to be right because Hauser says so, the guy is stuck in the damn 70's, I doubt very much his knowledge of anything after Ali is that impressive. I'm not going to go and ask Clay Moyle what he thinks of the current scene because he's stuck even further back.