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.”"

Can I ask you not to chuck lists at me Haz.....They are irrelevant.......as well you know...

There are lists on the internet that have Chavez top 10.......and Armstrong between 10 and 20......

Just stop it.......

Chris, rowley and the Captain are enough for me to say that Duran being above Leonard is not a done deal.......

and that's all I'm doing is rebutting Ghosty's claim that I hate duran because he's regarded higher than leonard.......

which is contentious as my thread has shown..........

You rate Louis.......archie Moore doesn't..........I'm not chucking him at you Mate.

both entitled to your opinion.

azania wrote:Can we stop playing the race card please.  

                                                      

Rowley wrote:In all fairness Haz the Boxing News list was terrible. If memory serves they had Fitzsimmons down in the 60s which is inexcusably low and like all these lists tend to do they favoured the heavyweights to shameful levels. Love the magazine dearly but thought the list was very poor on the whole.

Yeah, there's some odd ones in there -- I love Hearns and Lewis dearly but they're too high. I think it was compiled by a panel of supposed experts (Sky Sports panel, whole raft of writers etc) so I guess it's democracy in action.

The top ten isn't bad. I'd have SRL lower but couldn't knock him as a fighter so wouldn't quibble too much.

Obviously a more obvious lean to the modern lot.

As Chris said some time ago there is a risk in just accepting on face value lists put forward by experts. As Chris argued I would not for a split second consider my knowledge anywhere near that of Bob Mee. As a journalist and historian he is almost without peer but he has Archie Moore as the second greatest of all time, am fairly sure none of us on here would agree with that but does not diminish by one iota the level of knowledge of the sport Mee has.

What is all this expert guff.......You keep coming out with ????????

What is an expert ???

Dundee, Futch and Lederman all picked Ruddock to beat the useless overrated Lewis in a KO head to head.......

Fleischer reckoned Dempsey koed Ali.......

Useless Lewis went on to dominate the heavies for nearly ten years........

It's bull...............Experts say nicklaus toys with woods on a golf course...

you play too heavy on experts...........

Don't quite no where to start with that awful list Haz but Moore above Charles would be a good start as would Ketchel being in the top 20. Could somehow enlighten me how he gets rated so highly for not doing a lot, he split a series 3-1 with Papke, beat an ageing O'Brien twice and beat the Sullivan twins but not much else, would have been beaten by Langford quite easily in an above board title match. The main issue with Ketchel is knowing which of fights were on the level.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Can I ask you not to chuck lists at me Haz.....They are irrelevant.......as well you know...

There are lists on the internet that have Chavez top 10.......and Armstrong between 10 and 20......

Just stop it.......

Chris, rowley and the Captain are enough for me to say that Duran being above Leonard is not a done deal.......

and that's all I'm doing is rebutting Ghosty's claim that I hate duran because he's regarded higher than leonard.......

which is contentious as my thread has shown..........

You rate Louis.......archie Moore doesn't..........I'm not chucking him at you Mate.

both entitled to your opinion.

They're a good source of debate and a decent guide to illustrate how contemporary experts rate fighters in history. I wouldn't say they're irrelevant -- everyone's opinion differs of course -- but it's interesting all the same.

Whether or not Archie Moore rated Louis is an aberration -- most experts, fighters, historians do rate him -- and highly.

You'd have to agree that on the whole, you're in the minority regarding Louis and Floyd (worldwide, not merely on these boards)?

Your Harry Carpenter was an expert..........

"Douglas-Holyfield is a joke.....Tell Tyson he'll sort the winner out"

"Honeyghan 12-5 against Starling.....I'll have some of that"

Nick faldo is an expert.......worst Ryder cup captain ever..........

Let's let Mayweather retire, then we can decide where he ranks...

Scottrf wrote:Let's let Mayweather retire, then we can decide where he ranks...

Maybe you should some him the way...  

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Your Harry Carpenter was an expert..........

"Douglas-Holyfield is a joke.....Tell Tyson he'll sort the winner out"

"Honeyghan 12-5 against Starling.....I'll have some of that"

Nick faldo is an expert.......worst Ryder cup captain ever..........

He was a commentator wasn't he?

Rowley wrote:As Chris said some time ago there is a risk in just accepting on face value lists put forward by experts. As Chris argued I would not for a split second consider my knowledge anywhere near that of Bob Mee. As a journalist and historian he is almost without peer but he has Archie Moore as the second greatest of all time, am fairly sure none of us on here would agree with that but does not diminish by one iota the level of knowledge of the sport Mee has.

Don't suppose you have Mee's list handy do you? Would be interested to have a look (I have the mag at home somehwere so should be able to fish it out if not).

No mate, like you I have the book at home.

Found it:

Bob Mee's top 10

1. Sugar Ray Robinson
2. Archie Moore
3. Joe Louis
4. Henry Armstrong
5. Muhammad Ali
6. Carlos Monzon
7. Jimmy Wilde
8. Harry Greb
9. Jack Johnson
10. Benny Leonard

BOB SAYS: I had the main few that I wanted up the top and the rest I was juggling for hours. In the end I got confused and somebody will say 'what have you got Jack Johnson at number nine for?' or 'why haven't you got Ray Leonard in there?' You can argue for either of them, but I think Jack Johnson was an astonishing fighter and deserves to be in there.

Matt Christie's top 10

1. Sugar Ray Robinson
2. Muhammad Ali
3. Henry Armstrong
4. Sugar Ray Leonard
5. Joe Louis
6. Roberto Duran
7. Harry Greb
8. Ezzard Charles
9. Willie Pep
10. Archie Moore

MATT SAYS: It is really hard to match somebody from the 1930's to the modern day because of all the technologies available now. To judge them against each other is a difficult task. I've always been one for the craftsmanship rather than the destruction and certainly people like Robinson, Ali and Ezzard Charles, in particular, were fantastic in the art of boxing.

Glenn McCrory's top 10

1. Sugar Ray Robinson
2. Joe Louis
3. Harry Greb
4. Muhammad Ali
5. Henry Armstrong
6. Archie Moore
7. Jimmy Wilde
8. Jack Dempsey
9. Carlos Monzon
10. Rocky Marciano

GLENN SAYS: When you see the great names that have graced this sport it gives you goosebumps and you realise what you love about the sport. Every time you do the list you change it, but would anybody go against Sugar Ray Robinson as the top pick? I don't think anybody possibly would because he was just an amazing, amazing fighter. I got to meet him once and he was great.

Archie Moore was a fighter.........and he didn't rate Louis and you do.........

No offence Mate but what is an expert.......??????

I've watched more Boxing than anyone on here I'd hazard to guess...On cable and premium cable all the time.....If the paltry amount of boxing that was on the TV here when I arrived is anything to go by.......

I could therefore say I'm a greater expert than you.........

Doesn't make me right though does it??

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Archie Moore was a fighter.........and he didn't rate Louis and you do.........

No offence Mate but what is an expert.......??????

I've watched more Boxing than anyone on here  I'd hazard to guess...On cable and premium cable all the time.....If the paltry amount of boxing that was on the TV here when I arrived is anything to go by.......

I could therefore say I'm a greater expert than you.........

Doesn't make me right though does it??

No.

Well glad you finally agree.........So no more lists.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Archie Moore was a fighter.........and he didn't rate Louis and you do.........

No offence Mate but what is an expert.......??????

I've watched more Boxing than anyone on here  I'd hazard to guess...On cable and premium cable all the time.....If the paltry amount of boxing that was on the TV here when I arrived is anything to go by.......

I could therefore say I'm a greater expert than you.........

Doesn't make me right though does it??

Ha! Only kidding -- couldn't resist.

I'd say someone like Mee has an opinion worth respecting -- historians who've studied the sport are sources worth consulting. The likes of poor Glenn (above) probably not so much.

Christie's is a solid list.

I don't regard anybody as having a better opinion than anyone else........As long as they aren't wums........

and that's where you go wrong............Just because a guy writes about the sport doesn't mean they give certain fighters they don't like fair shots.......

Reg Gutteridge was an ex-fighter, writer and longtime commentator he didn't rate Duran either.....

why is Mee's opinion better than his ??

It's bollox pal...........

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I don't regard anybody as having a better opinion than anyone else........As long as they aren't wums........

and that's where you go wrong............Just because a guy writes about the sport doesn't mean they give certain fighters they don't like fair shots.......

Reg Gutteridge was an ex-fighter, writer and longtime commentator  he didn't rate Duran either.....

why is Mee's opinion better than his ??

It's bollox pal...........

So in life no-one knows more than anyone else?

BTW...........Toptens.com list .. has Leonard higher than Duran and even though I've never heard of them they are definitely a site to respect.......Because they agree with me!! 

You agree with Pacquiao at #1 too?

hazharrison wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I don't regard anybody as having a better opinion than anyone else........As long as they aren't wums........

and that's where you go wrong............Just because a guy writes about the sport doesn't mean they give certain fighters they don't like fair shots.......

Reg Gutteridge was an ex-fighter, writer and longtime commentator  he didn't rate Duran either.....

why is Mee's opinion better than his ??

It's bollox pal...........

So in life no-one knows more than anyone else?

If Bob Mee rates Louis and archie Moore doesn't..........Then who do you respect more then ??

Redundant exercise Son.........

Joke list isn't it scotty.............I saw another list that had Braddock at 6..........

Does anyone remember that list of top ten Canadian fighters someone found and posted here once. Now that was funny, should have been renamed top ten Canadian fighters I can think of. No Langford anywhere on the list. No Lewis either!

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I don't regard anybody as having a better opinion than anyone else........As long as they aren't wums........

and that's where you go wrong............Just because a guy writes about the sport doesn't mean they give certain fighters they don't like fair shots.......

Reg Gutteridge was an ex-fighter, writer and longtime commentator  he didn't rate Duran either.....

why is Mee's opinion better than his ??

It's bollox pal...........

So in life no-one knows more than anyone else?

If Bob Mee rates Louis and archie Moore doesn't..........Then who do you respect more then ??

Redundant exercise Son.........

Joke list isn't it scotty.............I saw another list that had Braddock at 6..........

Mee. He's the historian with the greater knowledge.

If I was looking to throw a left hook properly, I'd go to Moore.

Scottrf wrote:You agree with Pacquiao at #1 too?

LOL!!

Like I've said I've seen over a thousand fights and have researched Corbett and followed Curry from amateur all the way to world champioship status.......

The Captain, Chris and Rowley are historians...Know plenty on oldtime fighters and modern ones........They have Leonard higher than Duran.......As I do......

why does this Mee's opinion outweigh the three and a half ours.... (my knowledge is lacking in comparison)

It's BS pal..

hazharrison wrote:Christie's is a solid list.

Would swap Pep for Floyd.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Like I've said I've seen over a thousand fights and have researched Corbett and followed Curry from amateur all the way to world champioship status.......

The Captain, Chris and Rowley are historians...Know plenty on oldtime fighters and modern ones........They have Leonard higher than Duran.......As I do......

why does this Mee's opinion outweigh the three and a half ours.... (my knowledge is lacking in comparison)

It's BS pal..

He's a walking encyclopedia. If you lot know more than him, why aren't Boxing News paying you all instead of him?

TopHat24/7 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:Christie's is a solid list.

Would swap Pep for Floyd.

Cool. Based on?

Nat Fleischer was a walking encyclopedia and picked dempsey to knock out Ali ?

Cameron knows more about politics than I ever will about Britain anyway....

so I shouldn't vote Labour??????

As for the Boxing news paying him and not me.........Unfortunately I studied Psychology and not journalism..

for some reason that's a disadvantage........Haz you really have to up your game.

Guys maybe we should not debate on 606........Because If we don't agree with our Saviour "Bob Mee" we are all full of S**t........

Anyway I've changed my list........

1. Dempsey
2. Ali
3. Robbo

Because Nat fleisher was a walking encyclopedia so he's obviously right... 

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Nat Fleischer was a walking encyclopedia and picked dempsey to knock out Ali ?

Cameron knows more about politics than I ever will about Britain anyway....

so I shouldn't vote Labour??????

As for the Boxing news paying him and not me.........Unfortunately  I studied Psychology and not journalism..

for some reason that's a disadvantage........Haz you really have to up your game.

Mee acts as an advisor to Sky Sports and various other outlets -- maybe give them a call?

This where you're ridiculous Haz, Archie Moore fought over 200 times against the very best of his generation from Burley to Charles to Marciano to Ali, he was involved in the sport for over 60 years culminating in training old man Foreman. If you are honestly telling me that a mere boxing writer knows more than him then that's just ludicrous, i'd favour his opinion over any writers whether it be Mee, Sugar, Fleischer, Moyle or anyone else.

hazharrison wrote:He's a walking encyclopedia. If you lot know more than him, why aren't Boxing News paying you all instead of him?

I had a letter published in there the other week if that counts.

hazharrison wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:Christie's is a solid list.

Would swap Pep for Floyd.

Cool. Based on?

Honestly? Ignorance, in part. Combined with a belief in Floyd's utter brilliance. Whilst I don't think he is without criticism, as much as that upsets Truss etc, I still think that as a boxing talent he is a once in a generation giant of ability and his record is excellent with lots of very good wins even if it lacks major big name sparkling highlight wins. Just can't help but feel he should be in there, so I have to pick someone to drop and Archie and Pep are probably the two in that list I must profess the greatest ignorance of.

Unfair maybe, but I lack the encyclopaedic knowledge of some on here!

Rowley wrote:

hazharrison wrote:He's a walking encyclopedia. If you lot know more than him, why aren't Boxing News paying you all instead of him?

I had a letter published in there the other week if that counts.

Moaning about ticket prices?

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Guys maybe we should not debate on 606........Because If we don't agree with our Saviour "Bob Mee" we are all full of S**t........

Anyway I've changed my list........

1. Dempsey
2. Ali
3. Robbo

Because Nat fleisher was a walking encyclopedia so he's obviously right... 

Typical school yard stuff. Who declared him a saviour? He just knows way more about boxing than you or I.

Okay you win..........Bob Mee knows everything and Rowley, chris, Captain and me know S**T

Mayweather is overrated too because Mcrory doesn't rate him and he was a top cruiser......

Just hope Bob Mee doesn't have links with Bin Laden or we might see a plane going into Westminster with haz piloting it..

I might know S**t but Momma certainly raised no sheep, Mister !!!!

Experts can of course be wrong. But they are wrong far less than the likes of Truss and his followers.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:Christie's is a solid list.

Would swap Pep for Floyd.

Cool. Based on?

Honestly? Ignorance, in part. Combined with a belief in Floyd's utter brilliance.  Whilst I don't think he is without criticism, as much as that upsets Truss etc, I still think that as a boxing talent he is a once in a generation giant of ability and his record is excellent with lots of very good wins even if it lacks major big name sparkling highlight wins.  Just can't help but feel he should be in there, so I have to pick someone to drop and Archie and Pep are probably the two in that list I must profess the greatest ignorance of.

Unfair maybe, but I lack the encyclopaedic knowledge of some on here!

Fair enough -- least you're honest! For the record, Pep went 65-0 before losing to HOFer Sammy Angott. He then went something stupid like 135-1. His record is littered with top quality fighters -- better than Floyd's.

Lumbering_Jack wrote:Experts can of course be wrong. But they are wrong far less than the likes of Truss and his followers.

Twenty words in that post..........That's your weekly quota used.........

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Okay you win..........Bob Mee knows everything and Rowley, chris, Captain and me know S**T

Mayweather is overrated too because Mcrory doesn't rate him and he was a top cruiser......

Just hope Bob Mee doesn't have links with Bin Laden or we might see a plane going into Westminster with haz piloting it..

I might know S**t but Momma certainly raised no sheep, Mister !!!!

I never said that about Rowley, Chris or Captain -- that would clearly be preposterous.

That third line is disturbing but also illuminating.

He also lost 3 times out of 4 to Saddler, I don't hard it against as much as others because with a modern ref I think he wins 4 out of 4 but you can argue he wasn't even the best featherweight of his era.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:He also lost 3 times out of 4 to Saddler, I don't hard it against as much as others because with a modern ref I think he wins 4 out of 4 but you can argue he wasn't even the best featherweight of his era.

Pep rates higher, though. Similar scenario to Bowe-Holyfield.

It will be very difficult for a modern fighter to err be regarded as the best, because they don't fight often enough. Of course it is possible and with quality opposition it could possibly be done but top fighters manage to avoid each other.

If Floyd was more active and took and the best available opponents he might have a shout, be he didn't so he's not.

Lumbering_Jack wrote:It will be very difficult for a modern fighter to err be regarded as the best, because they don't fight often enough. Of course it is possible and with quality opposition it could possibly be done but top fighters manage to avoid each other.

If Floyd was more active and took and the best available opponents he might have a shout, be he didn't so he's not.

Leonard was in with a shot until Hearns wrecked his eye (I believe it was Hearns -- I'll consult Bob Mee).

hazharrison wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:He also lost 3 times out of 4 to Saddler, I don't hard it against as much as others because with a modern ref I think he wins 4 out of 4 but you can argue he wasn't even the best featherweight of his era.

Pep rates higher, though. Similar scenario to Bowe-Holyfield.

I'll be honest the 1950's featherweights are a bit of a blind spot for me but there isn't a great deal on Peps record from what I can see, Bartolo, Wright and Famechon being the standouts.

hazharrison wrote:

Lumbering_Jack wrote:It will be very difficult for a modern fighter to err be regarded as the best, because they don't fight often enough. Of course it is possible and with quality opposition it could possibly be done but top fighters manage to avoid each other.

If Floyd was more active and took and the best available opponents he might have a shout, be he didn't so he's not.

Leonard was in with a shot until Hearns wrecked his eye (I believe it was Hearns -- I'll consult Bob Mee).

Leonard is a very good shout. The man's CV is littered with fabulous fighters.

Of course guys with the same talent aren't around today. In the absence of that talent being available they need to take on all comers. Give Floyd the attitude of Froch and we might have something.