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:

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.

If Floyd had shut out Pacquiao and remained unbeaten -- his greatness would not have been questioned.

hazharrison wrote:

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.

Sigh. No he never said Floyd was top ten because he never lost. He said Floyd was top ten and made a case for it. You just chose to read to read it that way.

catchweight wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

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.

Sigh. No he never said Floyd was top ten because he never lost. He said Floyd was top ten and made a case for it. You just chose to read to read it that way.

You have added nothing to this debate (other than arguing over semantics). Congrats man!

hazharrison wrote:

catchweight wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

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.

Sigh. No he never said Floyd was top ten because he never lost. He said Floyd was top ten and made a case for it. You just chose to read to read it that way.

You have added nothing to this debate (other than arguing over semantics). Congrats man!

Just pointing your lists etc are a load of tosh. If you ever had a point it got lost in your own waffle.

Can any Floyd fan answer my why between 2007 and 2012 he only took on 1 number 1 ranked challenger and why he shouldn't be marked down for this.

Anyone

Please

Try

He should have fought Pacquiao and that win would have added nothing according to some.

The problem is Haz/Strongy and Az/Truss are polar opposites in this when the truth is somewhere in between, Mayweather isn't a top 5 fighter but at the same time there is no way he's outside the top 15.

catchweight wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

catchweight wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

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.

Sigh. No he never said Floyd was top ten because he never lost. He said Floyd was top ten and made a case for it. You just chose to read to read it that way.

You have added nothing to this debate (other than arguing over semantics). Congrats man!

Just pointing your lists etc are a load of tosh. If you ever had a point it got lost in your own waffle.

They aren't my lists. I did try to make that clear by writing who they belong to above each one.

My point is valid. No-one has offered up one credible argument or source to the contrary (other than Paulie Malignaggi).

Hammersmith harrier wrote:He should have fought Pacquiao and that win would have added nothing according to some.

The problem is Haz/Strongy and Az/Truss are polar opposites in this when the truth is somewhere in between, Mayweather isn't a top 5 fighter but at the same time there is no way he's outside the top 15.

On what basis? Why are you so certain he belongs so high?

People just pluck a number out of the air on here.

A credible source is in the eye of the beholder, why do you struggle to understand that so much?

Hammersmith harrier wrote:A credible source is in the eye of the beholder, why do you struggle to understand that so much?

Dear God.....

hazharrison wrote:

catchweight wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

catchweight wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

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.

Sigh. No he never said Floyd was top ten because he never lost. He said Floyd was top ten and made a case for it. You just chose to read to read it that way.

You have added nothing to this debate (other than arguing over semantics). Congrats man!

Just pointing your lists etc are a load of tosh. If you ever had a point it got lost in your own waffle.

They aren't my lists. I did try to make that clear by writing who they belong to above each one.

My point is valid. No-one has offered up one credible argument or source to the contrary (other than Paulie Malignaggi).

How can anyone make a valid point when you clearly just choose to misinterpret and ignore any points they make. I can see why you let Hauser do your talking mate, you make a right balls of it when you try it yourself.

hazharrison wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:He should have fought Pacquiao and that win would have added nothing according to some.

The problem is Haz/Strongy and Az/Truss are polar opposites in this when the truth is somewhere in between, Mayweather isn't a top 5 fighter but at the same time there is no way he's outside the top 15.

On what basis? Why are you so certain he belongs so high?

People just pluck a number out of the air on here.

I'm more than happy to produce my full top 15 but all you do is retort with Hauser so what's the point.

I think it, therefore it's right. I don't care about evidence or alternative views - I think it so there.

No wonder the country's knackered.

Hauser for PM

catchweight wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

catchweight wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

catchweight wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

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.

Sigh. No he never said Floyd was top ten because he never lost. He said Floyd was top ten and made a case for it. You just chose to read to read it that way.

You have added nothing to this debate (other than arguing over semantics). Congrats man!

Just pointing your lists etc are a load of tosh. If you ever had a point it got lost in your own waffle.

They aren't my lists. I did try to make that clear by writing who they belong to above each one.

My point is valid. No-one has offered up one credible argument or source to the contrary (other than Paulie Malignaggi).

How can anyone make a valid point when you clearly just choose to misinterpret and ignore any points they make. I can see why you let Hauser do your talking mate, you make a right balls of it when you try it yourself.

Go on - have a go. I could do with a laugh.

That's exactly your view, why are struggling so hard to comprehend this, Hauser and my experts say it so therefore it is.

You can't hack the fact hardly anyone on here agrees with you so bang on again and again about so called experts who in reality know no better than some on here anyway.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:He should have fought Pacquiao and that win would have added nothing according to some.

The problem is Haz/Strongy and Az/Truss are polar opposites in this when the truth is somewhere in between, Mayweather isn't a top 5 fighter but at the same time there is no way he's outside the top 15.

On what basis? Why are you so certain he belongs so high?

People just pluck a number out of the air on here.

I'm more than happy to produce my full top 15 but all you do is retort with Hauser so what's the point.

Promise I won't quote Tommy (as hard as that will be as I'm ALWAYS banging on about him).

Hammersmith harrier wrote:That's exactly your view, why are struggling so hard to comprehend this, Hauser and my experts say it so therefore it is.

You can't hack the fact hardly anyone on here agrees with you so bang on again and again about so called experts who in reality know no better than some on here anyway.

I genuinely couldn't give two hoots what folk on here think. I'm more than likely dealing with one guy with a bunch of aliases anyway.

My experts????!!!

Why bother coming on here then, just to enlighten everyone with the views of your experts.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Why bother coming on here then, just to enlighten everyone with the views of your experts.

Your experts???!!

Would you rather I left so you could feel more secure about Floyd?

The experts who produced the lists which contradict eachother but your whole views rest on.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:The experts who produced the lists which contradict eachother but your whole views rest on.

Are they mine? Or was it a cross section of views from a variety of respected sources?

Can you actually read?

I don't respect the views of Hauser or Sugar because they talk a load of old tosh, like i've said hundreds of times they are only respected if you agree with them.

Sigh. No he never said Floyd was top ten because he never lost. He said Floyd was top ten and made a case for it. You just chose to read to read it that way.

---------------------------------

It seems haz has put his own interpritation on my post. You got it spot on cw. I didn't say that.

Top argument fellas (fella?). Great contributions.

The problem I have with many of these "boxing historians" is that they always seem to judge the careers of old-school fighters through nostalgic, rose-tinted glasses but tend to be overtly negative and harsh when judging any modern day fighter.

This threads got a bit heavy and dark, hasn't it! We should try and steer it back on track.

Speaking of 'experts' (oops, sorry!), in last week's 'Boxing News', boxing historian and author Nigel Collins gave his five fighters (one from each of the divisions in which Mayweather has won titles) who he'd either pick outright to beat Mayweather, or alternatively at least have the best chance of beating him, from the past thirty-five years or so.

Have to say that some of his picks didn't strike me as the most obvious or logical ones, but in Collins' defence he did state that he would keep it to fighters he'd watched from ringside throughout his career.

His picks were;

Super-Featherweight: Pacquiao
Lightweight: Mosley
Light-Welterweight: Pryor
Welterweight: Ray Leonard
Light-Middleweight: McCallum

This was all assuming, of course, that the names mentioned above were at the peaks when facing Floyd at those particular weights.

What does everyone else reckon? Collins' aim any good, for you?

Can we all ease up on telling or suggesting people should leave the board if they have the temerity to disagree with you or express their argument in a manner you don't agree with. That is my job round here.

Would have to be Arguello at super featherweight and Hearns at Welterweight.

hazharrison wrote:Top argument fellas (fella?). Great contributions.

The argument of the defeated. Assume a clone. Muppet.

I'd pick Floyd to beat Manny at any weight. Ditto Mosely. Floyd v Pryor would be interesting but I'd back Floyd's accuracy and defence over Pryor's workrate.

SRL and McCallum would beat him.

Rowley wrote:Can we all ease up on telling or suggesting people should leave the board

Go. Go now Jeff. Go for good. Il tell everyone you moved onto better things or something. Go

You'd miss me Stefan you know you would

Rowley wrote:You'd miss me Stefan you know you would

That I would. Plus us Welsh (or half-Welsh) have gotta stick together on here

I'm not sure I'd take anyone over Floyd at super featherweight.

azania wrote:

hazharrison wrote:Top argument fellas (fella?). Great contributions.

The argument of the defeated. Assume a clone. Muppet.

You must be a riot on social networks.

I'm the dog's bollox.

azania wrote:I'm the dog's bollox.

Mangy.

hazharrison wrote:

azania wrote:I'm the dog's bollox.

Mangy.

And rabid.

But still Money May is a top 10 ATG.

azania wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

azania wrote:I'm the dog's bollox.

Mangy.

And rabid.

But still Money May is a top 10 ATG.

So is Joe Calzaghe. And Terry Marsh.

Why?

Are you the fool who has Louis above Ali?

azania wrote:Why?

Are you the fool who has Louis above Ali?

Naaaa. I have Marciano above both. Never lost.

Ali is just behind Horace Notice.

hazharrison wrote:

azania wrote:Why?

Are you the fool who has Louis above Ali?

Naaaa. I have Marciano above both. Never lost.

Ah, so that's it. The fact that Floyd has the zero? You let your dislike cloud your judgement. Out on interest, put your top 5.

Mine are
SRL
Ali
Floyd
RJJ,
Robbo

Floyd.
Roger.
Floyd.
Marsh.
Sitbangprachan.

Very good.

88Chris05 wrote:This threads got a bit heavy and dark, hasn't it! We should try and steer it back on track.

Speaking of 'experts' (oops, sorry!), in last week's 'Boxing News', boxing historian and author Nigel Collins gave his five fighters (one from each of the divisions in which Mayweather has won titles) who he'd either pick outright to beat Mayweather, or alternatively at least have the best chance of beating him, from the past thirty-five years or so.

Have to say that some of his picks didn't strike me as the most obvious or logical ones, but in Collins' defence he did state that he would keep it to fighters he'd watched from ringside throughout his career.

His picks were;

Super-Featherweight: Pacquiao
Lightweight: Mosley
Light-Welterweight: Pryor
Welterweight: Ray Leonard
Light-Middleweight: McCallum

This was all assuming, of course, that the names mentioned above were at the peaks when facing Floyd at those particular weights.

What does everyone else reckon? Collins' aim any good, for you?

I hate to interupt the foreplay between haz and az.

But... i'd quite like to have seen floyd Taylor and floyd Oscar at 140. Always thought Oscar looked a better fighter at the lighter weights, abd there was enough in their actual fight to suggest s younger, faster, fitter Oscar gives him plenty of trouble. Floyd Norris at 154 would have been interesting too. However, my 5 would be:

Superfeather Manny
Lightweight Whittaker
Light welter: Pryor
Welter: Leonard
Light middle: hearns

Taylor a nightmare for any 140 pounder - fastest thing on two legs.

Haz is one of the most informed and knowledgeable posters on here and he's a right to disagree......

My one problem is with his selectivity of experts to back his case...A trait d4 mastered to a tee.....

Hauser's Ali book was one of the most researched I've ever read a real work of art.......His love for the period shone through..........

Which makes one think like Haz himself his heart is in Boxing's past.......and like it or not it shapes opinion.......

Disagree with Haz on this but appreciate his often excellent contribution........