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.”"

azania wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

azania wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Why was it better Haz..........Hopkins vs Hearns..............Kesler vs Mugabi............

Who did he beat better than Eubank..........Sibson ??

Let's have a look:

Calzaghe

Lacy
Bika
Manfredo
Kessler

Hagler

Minter
Obelmejias
Antuofermo
Hamsho
Lee
Obelmejias
Sibson
Scypion
Duran
Roldan
Hamsho
Hearns
Mugabi

Hmmm. It's a toughie.

 

It leaves just Hearns who was hopelessly undersized.

Yet won titles at 160 and 175. BOOM!!

Later on. On that night, just as Hatton was apparently undersized against Floyd even though he was bigger and heavier, Hearns was the smaller guiy. Hopelessly undersized. He had never won a fight at MW either.

If Guerrero goes on to excel at welterweight then the same principle applies. Like Joe Cortez I'm firm but I'm fair.

Yeah but Hearns hardly excelled at MW did he. What happened when he fought Barkley?

Duran went on to excel at middleweight didn't he ........................ 

Listen to yourself...

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I'm not interested in reigns.......I'm interested in opposition..........Stop smokescreening......

Duran fought out of his skin that night perhaps..............25 pounds above his weight class and Hagler fights stiffs so he can avoid Spinks.........

and you moan about Mayweather................Who has left his comfort zone repeatedly.....

Oscar could have fought stiffs at lightweight for 10 years......no doubt that would make him top 10 material in your book........not in mine though.

I'm only addressing what you asked. Don't blame me if I can't read your mind!

I agree -- remarkable performance from Duran. Fought with a broken hand also.

And we've been through the Spinks thing. There's no evidence to back your assertion. THWACK!!

Pathetic...........Hearns beats a half cut Duran..........No evidence to suggest he was half cut...

But there is no evidence Hagler fought stiff after stiff instead of wanting a fight with spinks..

p**s poor stuff.

I was joking about the half-cut stuff. You're not joking with the Spinks claims, sadly.

azania wrote:Yeah but Hearns hardly excelled at MW did he. What happened when he fought Barkley?

I didn't say he did. He was better at welter and light middle.

He did beat the great Juan Roldan though Azania........

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Duran went on to excel at middleweight didn't he ........................ 

Listen to yourself...

No. Err and no thanks.

hazharrison wrote:

azania wrote:Yeah but Hearns hardly excelled at MW did he. What happened when he fought Barkley?

I didn't say he did. He was better at welter and light middle.

What are you going on about Guerrero for then............

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:He did beat the great Juan Roldan though Azania........

Schuler and Hill wins were good, though, weren't they Truss?

If you say uncle I'll stop?

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

azania wrote:Yeah but Hearns hardly excelled at MW did he. What happened when he fought Barkley?

I didn't say he did. He was better at welter and light middle.

What are you going on about Guerrero for then............

I'm not going on about him. I'm playing with a funny little bunch of Floyd fans until home time.

Okay so in conclusion..........

1. All our opinions on boxing suck because we aren't Bob Mee who knows everything..

2. Mayweather's fights with hatton and Marquez didn't count because they had no record of success at welter.......whereas Hagler's greatest win over Hearns does even though he didn't have a record at 160......

3. Duran was half cut when he fought Hearns..(Take Haz word for it).......But there is no evidence Hagler didn't want to fight Spinks.......no double standards there..

4. Hagler fought better fighters than Calzaghe during his reign............Eubank, Kessler, Hoppo, Lacy, Mitchell aren't as good collectively as a 160 pound Duran, Minter and Hearns.....

okay I think I've got it............

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Okay so in conclusion..........

1. All our opinions on boxing suck because we aren't Bob Mee who knows everything..

2. Mayweather's fights with hatton and Marquez didn't count because they had no record of success at welter.......whereas Hagler's greatest win over Hearns does even though he didn't have a record at 160......

3. Duran was half cut when he fought Hagler..(Take Haz word for it).......But there is no evidence Hagler didn't want to fight Spinks.......no double standards there..

4. Hagler fought better fighters than Calzaghe during his reign............Eubank, Kessler, Hoppo, Lacy, Mitchell aren't as good collectively as a 160 pound Duran, Minter and Hearns.....

okay I think I've got it............

1. No. Quite a few posters do, though. And quite frequently, which is a worry.

2. No. They do count because he fought them. They just weren't welterweights.

3. No. It was a throw away remark to describe Duran's apparent blase attitide to the fight. And yes, there is no evidence as we've already agreed.

4. Yes, reigns (emphasis on the word reign) detailed previously.

You can pull your pants up now mate.

hazharrison wrote:

azania wrote:Yeah but Hearns hardly excelled at MW did he. What happened when he fought Barkley?

I didn't say he did. He was better at welter and light middle.

Listen son. I'm a massive Hagler fan. I prefer him as a boxer to Floyd any day. After Ali, Hagler is my favourite boxer of all time. But to rank him above Floyd is sheer madness. I'm also a huge Duran fan, but he too is over-rated.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:He did beat the great Juan Roldan though Azania........

And the mighty Caveman Lee and Wilfred (or was it Winifred) Scypion.

Duran was good when he wasn't half cut though Az.........

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Okay so in conclusion..........

1. All our opinions on boxing suck because we aren't Bob Mee who knows everything..

2. Mayweather's fights with hatton and Marquez didn't count because they had no record of success at welter.......whereas Hagler's greatest win over Hearns does even though he didn't have a record at 160......

3. Duran was half cut when he fought Hearns..(Take Haz word for it).......But there is no evidence Hagler didn't want to fight Spinks.......no double standards there..

4. Hagler fought better fighters than Calzaghe during his reign............Eubank, Kessler, Hoppo, Lacy, Mitchell aren't as good collectively as a 160 pound Duran, Minter and Hearns.....

okay I think I've got it............

Bob Mee has Archie Moore as number 2 P4P ATG.

I'm a big fan of Haz but his whole Mayweather argument is kind of like a serial killer's attorney saying he can provide an alibi for the 15th victim on the indictment sheet......

it's tittle tattle.......

Good watching him twist and turn though........Like a true pro.......

I could learn a thing or two from him.

Some how I reckon you'll be able to get by..