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.”"

What makes your argument a lesser one is your continual chucking selective experts at people (like Strongy) and then when they refute writing "I'll trust the experts"..

Knowing damn well there are plenty of experts out there who disagree with your experts....

Archie Moore doesn't rate Louis and you do.........Is Archie right.........No he just differs to you....

I think Ali would beat louis..............Nat Fleischer who you've quoted doesn't........

I'm wrong because he founded the ring.........

Hammersmith harrier wrote: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.

Maybe check out some of Hauser's recent works.

The man knows his stuff -- he's still relevant.

I'm merely offering an alternative view -- a view a large proportion of boxing fans/quality writers/historians/experts agree with. Obviously Floyd fans disagree -- I'm not going to change that (nor do I care to). I just merely challenge their views when it's offered up as fact.

Isn't that the purpose of this place? Or is it a club where everyone has to agree?

Hammersmith harrier wrote: I'm not going to go and ask Clay Moyle what he thinks of the current scene because he's stuck even further back.

He has written a book on Tony Zale I'll have you know, positively modern, his bibliography is Langford, Miske and Zale now, carries on that trajectory he will be doing a Nathan Cleverly biography within the next ten years.

[quote="TRUSSMAN66"]
Knowing damn well there are plenty of experts out there who disagree with your experts....

quote]

Who?

You're not offering an opinion Haz, you are providing us with Hausers opinion, all you do is regurgitate whatever it is he's said ad nauseam. Stop being a sheep and provide your own argument for a change because an expert is a highly subjective thing, i'm more likely to listen to a former boxer like Moore or Malignaggi than I am a journalist.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:You're not offering an opinion Haz, you are providing us with Hausers opinion, all you do is regurgitate whatever it is he's said ad nauseam. Stop being a sheep and provide your own argument for a change because an expert is a highly subjective thing, i'm more likely to listen to a former boxer like Moore or Malignaggi than I am a journalist.

I've given my opinion on a million and one threads.

Good for you. Look back at any HBO clip in history and the one commentator talking nonsense is usually the former boxer.

George Foreman was a prize example.

Rowley wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote: I'm not going to go and ask Clay Moyle what he thinks of the current scene because he's stuck even further back.

He has written a book on Tony Zale I'll have you know, positively modern, his bibliography is Langford, Miske and Zale now, carries on that trajectory he will be doing a Nathan Cleverly biography within the next ten years.

I used to like the articles cmoyle and alexd used to post on here...

Look I'm not going to trawl the internet but I can choose Chris88 and Captaincarrot on here who in my opinion know as much as anyone you've quoted who have Mayweather top 10.......As did another twenty or so on my thread including myself not that I'm in there bracket.....

I've also seen Mike Spinks on youtube say he thinks Mayweather is one of the greatest boxers of alltime...

Of course these guys I've chosen are more modern in their thinking.......Which is the problem with your list......perhaps

I think we can agree perhaps that Mayweather's true standing lies somewhere in the middle of our arguments...

Can't see how Hagler rates higher though but that's a different story.

hazharrison wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:You're not offering an opinion Haz, you are providing us with Hausers opinion, all you do is regurgitate whatever it is he's said ad nauseam. Stop being a sheep and provide your own argument for a change because an expert is a highly subjective thing, i'm more likely to listen to a former boxer like Moore or Malignaggi than I am a journalist.

I've given my opinion on a million and one threads.

Good for you. Look back at any HBO clip in history and the one commentator talking nonsense is usually the former boxer.

George Foreman was a prize example.

Then you get guys like Hopkins, Jones, Malignaggi and Ward who talk nothing but sense, they only talk nonsense if you don't agree with it. A fan of Lennox Lewis would hang on Foremans every word after the Tyson fight for example but someone who isn't would say he's talking rubbish.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:You're not offering an opinion Haz, you are providing us with Hausers opinion, all you do is regurgitate whatever it is he's said ad nauseam. Stop being a sheep and provide your own argument for a change because an expert is a highly subjective thing, i'm more likely to listen to a former boxer like Moore or Malignaggi than I am a journalist.

I've given my opinion on a million and one threads.

Good for you. Look back at any HBO clip in history and the one commentator talking nonsense is usually the former boxer.

George Foreman was a prize example.

Then you get guys like Hopkins, Jones, Malignaggi and Ward who talk nothing but sense, they only talk nonsense if you don't agree with it. A fan of Lennox Lewis would hang on Foremans every word after the Tyson fight for example but someone who isn't would say he's talking rubbish.

They aren't historians and would freely admit that. Do you really think Jones rates Floyd over himself? Or that Malignaggi doesn't covet a fight with Floyd? Or that Hopkins' opinion isn't slightly compromised due to being part of the promotional team that works with Floyd regularly?

You've misread again, the aforementioned all provide good insight when they are commentating and are able to talk about Mayweathers technical attributes to a level no historian can. A historian knows facts he doesn't know the ins and outs of boxing like an actual boxer, very easy to look in from the outside and give an opinion when you're not involved.

That guy that says the holocaust didn't exist........Is a historian..

Hammersmith harrier wrote:You've misread again, the aforementioned all provide good insight when they are commentating and are able to talk about Mayweathers technical attributes to a level no historian can. A historian knows facts he doesn't know the ins and outs of boxing like an actual boxer, very easy to look in from the outside and give an opinion when you're not involved.

I agree but I'm arguing about Floyd's historical ranking -- everyone agrees he's technically sublime and one of the most talented fighters of all time.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:That guy that says the holocaust didn't exist........Is a historian..

Thought he was a nazi?

If you say the one guy talking nonsense is the former boxer.......

Would you agree with Fleischer that Dempsey beats Ali.........???

Bert sugar has dempsey as the 9th best p4p ever Do you agree with that...?/

Historians love their subjects........which is why people that write books about great leaders like Lincoln think guys like Clinton suck........

hazharrison wrote:

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.

Oh, I apportion complete blame to Floyd for not fighting Cotto in 08/09, Who else could be to blame? And, as stated, it counts significantly against him.

Moseley wasn't 'fossilised' when he was demolishing the much vaunted, would-be Floyd destroyer Margarito, was he? Hauser himself criticises Floyd for not fighting Margarito but you cannot have it both ways. It is hypocritical to chastise Mayweather for avoiding Margarito, then chastise him for taking on, and beating, the man who did beat Margarito in his very last outing.

I tend to view the Mayweather vs Pacquiao debacle as a 50/50. There is blame to be apportioned on both sides. However, with regards specifically to Mayweather asking for random drug testing, he has no case to answer. Unless, of course, you think it is unreasonable for a fighter to want to ensure that his opponent is not cheating?

Mayweather can never be a top 5 ATG in my opinion as he failed to take on his greatest rival, and establish, beyond all doubt, himself as the best of his generation. However, that cuts both ways, and the same can be said of Pacquiao.

There isnt anyone qualified to give an accurate historical pound for pound ranking list. Hauser or whatever other expert is used might be more qualified than the like of us on here but the nature of the task means he is unlikely to be accurate all the same.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:If you say the one guy talking nonsense is the former boxer.......

Would you agree with Fleischer that Dempsey beats Ali.........???

Bert sugar has dempsey as the 9th best p4p ever Do you agree with that...?/

Historians love their subjects........which is why people that write books about great leaders like Lincoln think guys like Clinton suck........

Thought that was Lewinski...strange how our grasp of history fades

One thing a Floyd fan has never answered is why, between 2007 and 2012, Floyd only took on something like one number 1 ranked WW.

Great fighter, but has carefully picked his opponents and cannot be top 10 because of this.

He needs a Cotto and Manny plus maybe a Williams and Marg to really be considered, along with maybe taking on GGG. The first lot have passed, and he won't move to middleweight.

Floyd cannot be anything other than a top 10. Where in the top 10 is up for debate. It seems the bar is set at such a height that no other boxer alive or dead (Ali and SRL being the exception) can ever attain.

Why didn't he fight x or y is not something applied to say SRR who didn't fight Burley (duck?) and is not held against him. He lost the MW title 4 times but that is not held against him. All we have n Floyd is who he didn't fight or fight at the time his detractors think its convenient to use as a means to deny his greatness.Duran got slapped about like a fool by several fighters, yet many wouldn't argue too much with him in the top 10. Incredible. Floyd, like RJJ is a victim of social media, widespread coverage of fights and his own incredible talent. Plus nostalgia for the oldies.

I hear`Mosely being used. Well Gentleman01 has kicked that to touch but in a few weeks it will be brought back up again like recurring vomit.

The bottom line is that Floyd has proven himself to be the best in 5 weight classes but yet questions are asked. Legit questions I'll add in most cases. Paq being the obvious question. But I've read here that Floyd asking for strict drug tests was a way of him coping out by his detractors. Again Gentleman01 kicked that into touch.

Lumbering_Jack wrote:

Great fighter, but has carefully picked his opponents and cannot be top 10 because of this.
.

Want a bet............Out of 35 people on my Floyd thread at least 30 had him top 10........

So just a crock..................Besides you won't have heard of most of the top 10 that are already in there..so your opinion means very little.......At least haz can make a case and Strongy does try!!!

Your list was notorious by it's absence !!  

The 5 weight class blurb is pretty irrelevant. Back then the number of weight classes was reduced and the talent wasn't diluted as much as it is today.

Don't reply if my opinion is that irrelevant Truss.

Talent diluted as it is today? What period are you referring to?

Lumbering_Jack wrote:Don't reply if my opinion is that irrelevant Truss.

Now I've put you straight you can be sure I won't in future..........

azania wrote:Floyd cannot be anything other than a top 10. Where in the top 10 is up for debate. It seems the bar is set at such a height that no other boxer alive or dead (Ali and SRL being the exception) can ever attain.

Why didn't he fight x or y is not something applied to say SRR who didn't fight Burley (duck?) and is not held against him. He lost the MW title 4 times but that is not held against him. All we have n Floyd is who he didn't fight or fight at the time his detractors think its convenient to use as a means to deny his greatness.Duran got slapped about like a fool by several fighters, yet many wouldn't argue too much with him in the top 10. Incredible. Floyd, like RJJ is a victim of social media, widespread coverage of fights and his own incredible talent. Plus nostalgia for the oldies.

I hear`Mosely being used. Well Gentleman01 has kicked that to touch but in a few weeks it will be brought back up again like recurring vomit.

The bottom line is that Floyd has proven himself to be the best in 5 weight classes but yet questions are asked. Legit questions I'll add in most cases. Paq being the obvious question. But I've read here that Floyd asking for strict drug tests was a way of him coping out by his detractors. Again Gentleman01 kicked that into touch.

The entire point (sigh) is that the likes of Duran and Robinson were tested. Marciano, Calzaghe, Ottke, Lopez and others never lost but they aren't ranked among the greatest fighters of all time.

Also - I would be anxious to read your interpretation of how Floyd has proven himself to be the best man in five divisions?

He was the best in the world at super featherweight, lightweight, welterweight and light middleweight.

Corrales, Castillo, Baldomir and Alvarez were all fights for the lineal title.

hazharrison wrote:

azania wrote:Floyd cannot be anything other than a top 10. Where in the top 10 is up for debate. It seems the bar is set at such a height that no other boxer alive or dead (Ali and SRL being the exception) can ever attain.

Why didn't he fight x or y is not something applied to say SRR who didn't fight Burley (duck?) and is not held against him. He lost the MW title 4 times but that is not held against him. All we have n Floyd is who he didn't fight or fight at the time his detractors think its convenient to use as a means to deny his greatness.Duran got slapped about like a fool by several fighters, yet many wouldn't argue too much with him in the top 10. Incredible. Floyd, like RJJ is a victim of social media, widespread coverage of fights and his own incredible talent. Plus nostalgia for the oldies.

I hear`Mosely being used. Well Gentleman01 has kicked that to touch but in a few weeks it will be brought back up again like recurring vomit.

The bottom line is that Floyd has proven himself to be the best in 5 weight classes but yet questions are asked. Legit questions I'll add in most cases. Paq being the obvious question. But I've read here that Floyd asking for strict drug tests was a way of him coping out by his detractors. Again Gentleman01 kicked that into touch.

The entire point (sigh) is that the likes of Duran and Robinson were tested. Marciano, Calzaghe, Ottke, Lopez and others never lost but they aren't ranked among the greatest fighters of all time.

Also - I would be anxious to read your interpretation of how Floyd has proven himself to be the best man in five divisions?

Marciano appeared as one of the top 15 fighters in two of the "Mayweathers not great" articles you posted.

shhhhh..Az is on here !!

hazharrison wrote:

azania wrote:Floyd cannot be anything other than a top 10. Where in the top 10 is up for debate. It seems the bar is set at such a height that no other boxer alive or dead (Ali and SRL being the exception) can ever attain.

Why didn't he fight x or y is not something applied to say SRR who didn't fight Burley (duck?) and is not held against him. He lost the MW title 4 times but that is not held against him. All we have n Floyd is who he didn't fight or fight at the time his detractors think its convenient to use as a means to deny his greatness.Duran got slapped about like a fool by several fighters, yet many wouldn't argue too much with him in the top 10. Incredible. Floyd, like RJJ is a victim of social media, widespread coverage of fights and his own incredible talent. Plus nostalgia for the oldies.

I hear`Mosely being used. Well Gentleman01 has kicked that to touch but in a few weeks it will be brought back up again like recurring vomit.

The bottom line is that Floyd has proven himself to be the best in 5 weight classes but yet questions are asked. Legit questions I'll add in most cases. Paq being the obvious question. But I've read here that Floyd asking for strict drug tests was a way of him coping out by his detractors. Again Gentleman01 kicked that into touch.

The entire point (sigh) is that the likes of Duran and Robinson were tested. Marciano, Calzaghe, Ottke, Lopez and others never lost but they aren't ranked among the greatest fighters of all time.

Also - I would be anxious to read your interpretation of how Floyd has proven himself to be the best man in five divisions?

Duran got tested and was found wanting by the best he fought and by Kirkland Laing. Robbo got tested by guys who wouldn't last 5 rounds with a rampaging Hagler or SRL/Hearns or even Benitez. But nostalgia and biblical terminoligy is applied to him to elevate him. Yet he ducked Burley. Dig enough and there are gaping holes on every great boxer. But some holes are covered up whilst others and opened to a chasm type proportion.

You can talk now Trussy  

catchweight wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

azania wrote:Floyd cannot be anything other than a top 10. Where in the top 10 is up for debate. It seems the bar is set at such a height that no other boxer alive or dead (Ali and SRL being the exception) can ever attain.

Why didn't he fight x or y is not something applied to say SRR who didn't fight Burley (duck?) and is not held against him. He lost the MW title 4 times but that is not held against him. All we have n Floyd is who he didn't fight or fight at the time his detractors think its convenient to use as a means to deny his greatness.Duran got slapped about like a fool by several fighters, yet many wouldn't argue too much with him in the top 10. Incredible. Floyd, like RJJ is a victim of social media, widespread coverage of fights and his own incredible talent. Plus nostalgia for the oldies.

I hear`Mosely being used. Well Gentleman01 has kicked that to touch but in a few weeks it will be brought back up again like recurring vomit.

The bottom line is that Floyd has proven himself to be the best in 5 weight classes but yet questions are asked. Legit questions I'll add in most cases. Paq being the obvious question. But I've read here that Floyd asking for strict drug tests was a way of him coping out by his detractors. Again Gentleman01 kicked that into touch.

The entire point (sigh) is that the likes of Duran and Robinson were tested. Marciano, Calzaghe, Ottke, Lopez and others never lost but they aren't ranked among the greatest fighters of all time.

Also - I would be anxious to read your interpretation of how Floyd has proven himself to be the best man in five divisions?

Marciano appeared as one of the top 15 fighters in two of the "Mayweathers not great" articles you posted.

Not top ten, though.

Higher than Floyd though.

Thing is Az you say Robinson ducked Burley without knowing if he actually did or not and you then act as if Hagler, Leonard, Hearns and shockingly Benitez could dispatch of the likes of Basilio, LaMotta, Fullmer and Maxim within 5 rounds.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:He was the best in the world at super featherweight, lightweight, welterweight and light middleweight.

Corrales, Castillo, Baldomir and Alvarez were all fights for the lineal title.

He followed that famous Baldomir win (after which he sobbed at the presser) by never fighting another welterweight for almost four years (too small he said). Hardly proving yourself top man is it?

You beat the man to be the man, Mayweather has done than on four occasions at four different weights. You don't have to beat fight B, C, D and E as well A the last time I checked.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:You beat the man to be the man, Mayweather has done than on four occasions at four different weights. You don't have to beat fight B, C, D and E as well A the last time I checked.

He won the Ring title against poor opposition but chose money fights over tough fights (smart and understandable but the fact remains he ducked out of a solid welterweight division).

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Thing is Az you say Robinson ducked Burley without knowing if he actually did or not and you then act as if Hagler, Leonard, Hearns and shockingly Benitez could dispatch of the likes of Basilio, LaMotta, Fullmer and Maxim within 5 rounds.

I don't have to know the full details. I am applying the same logic as those who criticise Floyd. LaMotta would have gone the distance but he would have lost to all of them. So would Carmen, Fulmer and Maxim. But the principle is that had Floyd lost and regained any belt over 5 times, he would have been slaughtered on here for it.

It's the Pacquiao fight that kills him, though. Kills both.

Thing is, Pacquiao arguably has better wins than Floyd yet he's been forgotten. Morales, Barrera, Marquez (at weights they were still great) tops anything on Floyd's record.

hazharrison wrote:It's the Pacquiao fight that kills him, though. Kills both.

Thing is, Pacquiao arguably has better wins than Floyd yet he's been forgotten. Morales, Barrera, Marquez (at weights they were still great) tops anything on Floyd's record.

Marquez?

azania wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Thing is Az you say Robinson ducked Burley without knowing if he actually did or not and you then act as if Hagler, Leonard, Hearns and shockingly Benitez could dispatch of the likes of Basilio, LaMotta, Fullmer and Maxim within 5 rounds.

I don't have to know the full details. I am applying the same logic as those who criticise Floyd. LaMotta would have gone the distance but he would have lost to all of them. So would Carmen, Fulmer and Maxim. But the principle is that had Floyd lost and regained any belt over 5 times, he would have been slaughtered on here for it.

That simply isn't true. If he'd split a rivalry with Pacquiao in fights where they proved their greatness - I have no doubt that both would have been elevated.

hazharrison wrote:

catchweight wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

azania wrote:Floyd cannot be anything other than a top 10. Where in the top 10 is up for debate. It seems the bar is set at such a height that no other boxer alive or dead (Ali and SRL being the exception) can ever attain.

Why didn't he fight x or y is not something applied to say SRR who didn't fight Burley (duck?) and is not held against him. He lost the MW title 4 times but that is not held against him. All we have n Floyd is who he didn't fight or fight at the time his detractors think its convenient to use as a means to deny his greatness.Duran got slapped about like a fool by several fighters, yet many wouldn't argue too much with him in the top 10. Incredible. Floyd, like RJJ is a victim of social media, widespread coverage of fights and his own incredible talent. Plus nostalgia for the oldies.

I hear`Mosely being used. Well Gentleman01 has kicked that to touch but in a few weeks it will be brought back up again like recurring vomit.

The bottom line is that Floyd has proven himself to be the best in 5 weight classes but yet questions are asked. Legit questions I'll add in most cases. Paq being the obvious question. But I've read here that Floyd asking for strict drug tests was a way of him coping out by his detractors. Again Gentleman01 kicked that into touch.

The entire point (sigh) is that the likes of Duran and Robinson were tested. Marciano, Calzaghe, Ottke, Lopez and others never lost but they aren't ranked among the greatest fighters of all time.

Also - I would be anxious to read your interpretation of how Floyd has proven himself to be the best man in five divisions?

Marciano appeared as one of the top 15 fighters in two of the "Mayweathers not great" articles you posted.

Not top ten, though.

So the greatest fighters of all time are only the top ten in history? Seems like an awfully waffly process with rules made up as one goes along.

azania wrote:

hazharrison wrote:It's the Pacquiao fight that kills him, though. Kills both.

Thing is, Pacquiao arguably has better wins than Floyd yet he's been forgotten. Morales, Barrera, Marquez (at weights they were still great) tops anything on Floyd's record.

Marquez?

Marquez was ineffective at the weight Floyd dragged him to (before Angel Heredia, when rising from lightweight -- where he maxed out naturally -- to 142 meant a podgy fighter too small to compete). And Floyd STILL stiffed him by coming in two pounds over 144.

hazharrison wrote:

azania wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Thing is Az you say Robinson ducked Burley without knowing if he actually did or not and you then act as if Hagler, Leonard, Hearns and shockingly Benitez could dispatch of the likes of Basilio, LaMotta, Fullmer and Maxim within 5 rounds.

I don't have to know the full details. I am applying the same logic as those who criticise Floyd. LaMotta would have gone the distance but he would have lost to all of them. So would Carmen, Fulmer and Maxim. But the principle is that had Floyd lost and regained any belt over 5 times, he would have been slaughtered on here for it.

That simply isn't true. If he'd split a rivalry with Pacquiao in fights where they proved their greatness - I have no doubt that both would have been elevated.

Ah so he has to lose to prove his greatness. But because Floyd wins at a canter his greatness is questioned. Many people thought Alvarez had a chance. Had Floyd been decked, behind on points and came storming back to KO Saul, you guys would be creaming yourselves. But because he scored a shut out, he is questioned.

azania wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Thing is Az you say Robinson ducked Burley without knowing if he actually did or not and you then act as if Hagler, Leonard, Hearns and shockingly Benitez could dispatch of the likes of Basilio, LaMotta, Fullmer and Maxim within 5 rounds.

I don't have to know the full details. I am applying the same logic as those who criticise Floyd. LaMotta would have gone the distance but he would have lost to all of them. So would Carmen, Fulmer and Maxim. But the principle is that had Floyd lost and regained any belt over 5 times, he would have been slaughtered on here for it.

They may have beaten Basilio and Fullmer although that's not a given but Maxim is a different kettle of fish for all of them and Benitez probably beats none of them at middleweight. The logic only works if you know the full details, you can't criticise Robinson for things that aren't necessarily there to be criticised. The principle is also that Robinson was a veteran who had come out of retirement when he was losing the title the majority of the time, he has two careers pre Maxim and post Maxim.

hazharrison wrote:

azania wrote:

hazharrison wrote:It's the Pacquiao fight that kills him, though. Kills both.

Thing is, Pacquiao arguably has better wins than Floyd yet he's been forgotten. Morales, Barrera, Marquez (at weights they were still great) tops anything on Floyd's record.

Marquez?

Marquez was ineffective at the weight Floyd dragged him to (before Angel Heredia, when rising from lightweight -- where he maxed out naturally -- to 142 meant a podgy fighter too small to compete). And Floyd STILL stiffed him by coming in two pounds over 144.

Marquez beat him in 3 or their 4 fights in everyone but the judges eyes.

Floyd handled Marquez with consummate ease.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

azania wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Thing is Az you say Robinson ducked Burley without knowing if he actually did or not and you then act as if Hagler, Leonard, Hearns and shockingly Benitez could dispatch of the likes of Basilio, LaMotta, Fullmer and Maxim within 5 rounds.

I don't have to know the full details. I am applying the same logic as those who criticise Floyd. LaMotta would have gone the distance but he would have lost to all of them. So would Carmen, Fulmer and Maxim. But the principle is that had Floyd lost and regained any belt over 5 times, he would have been slaughtered on here for it.

They may have beaten Basilio and Fullmer although that's not a given but Maxim is a different kettle of fish for all of them and Benitez probably beats none of them at middleweight. The logic only works if you know the full details, you can't criticise Robinson for things that aren't necessarily there to be criticised. The principle is also that Robinson was a veteran who had come out of retirement when he was losing the title the majority of the time, he has two careers pre Maxim and post Maxim.

Benitez was a better fighter P4P than all of them.

Floyd is now a veteran.

catchweight wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

catchweight wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

azania wrote:Floyd cannot be anything other than a top 10. Where in the top 10 is up for debate. It seems the bar is set at such a height that no other boxer alive or dead (Ali and SRL being the exception) can ever attain.

Why didn't he fight x or y is not something applied to say SRR who didn't fight Burley (duck?) and is not held against him. He lost the MW title 4 times but that is not held against him. All we have n Floyd is who he didn't fight or fight at the time his detractors think its convenient to use as a means to deny his greatness.Duran got slapped about like a fool by several fighters, yet many wouldn't argue too much with him in the top 10. Incredible. Floyd, like RJJ is a victim of social media, widespread coverage of fights and his own incredible talent. Plus nostalgia for the oldies.

I hear`Mosely being used. Well Gentleman01 has kicked that to touch but in a few weeks it will be brought back up again like recurring vomit.

The bottom line is that Floyd has proven himself to be the best in 5 weight classes but yet questions are asked. Legit questions I'll add in most cases. Paq being the obvious question. But I've read here that Floyd asking for strict drug tests was a way of him coping out by his detractors. Again Gentleman01 kicked that into touch.

The entire point (sigh) is that the likes of Duran and Robinson were tested. Marciano, Calzaghe, Ottke, Lopez and others never lost but they aren't ranked among the greatest fighters of all time.

Also - I would be anxious to read your interpretation of how Floyd has proven himself to be the best man in five divisions?

Marciano appeared as one of the top 15 fighters in two of the "Mayweathers not great" articles you posted.

Not top ten, though.

So the greatest fighters of all time are only the top ten in history? Seems like an awfully waffly process with rules made up as one goes along.

(More sighs). He said Floyd was definitely top ten (as he never lost). I pointed out Marciano and other unbeaten fighters weren't. I'LL BE REALLY SPECIFIC FROM NOW ON!!

Floyd is one of the great fighters but most experts don't rank him top ten.

Marquez beat Pacquiao once and should have got the decision in their third fight, the first could have gone either way purely because of the first round while the second was a close but deserved win.

Mayweather will rate slightly higher than Pacquiao because he's shown less vulnerabilities but he hasn't got as many stand out wins. Morales, Barrera, Marquez and Cotto for me are better wins than Hernandez, Castillo, Coralles and De La Hoya. Beyond that though Mayweather has far more good wins than Pacquiao.

azania wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

azania wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Thing is Az you say Robinson ducked Burley without knowing if he actually did or not and you then act as if Hagler, Leonard, Hearns and shockingly Benitez could dispatch of the likes of Basilio, LaMotta, Fullmer and Maxim within 5 rounds.

I don't have to know the full details. I am applying the same logic as those who criticise Floyd. LaMotta would have gone the distance but he would have lost to all of them. So would Carmen, Fulmer and Maxim. But the principle is that had Floyd lost and regained any belt over 5 times, he would have been slaughtered on here for it.

They may have beaten Basilio and Fullmer although that's not a given but Maxim is a different kettle of fish for all of them and Benitez probably beats none of them at middleweight. The logic only works if you know the full details, you can't criticise Robinson for things that aren't necessarily there to be criticised. The principle is also that Robinson was a veteran who had come out of retirement when he was losing the title the majority of the time, he has two careers pre Maxim and post Maxim.

Benitez was a better fighter P4P than all of them.

Floyd is now a veteran.

He possibly was but seeing as he has no middleweight experience I don't think he actually beats any of them particularly Fullmer and Maxim.