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.”"

Manny's best work was not at 147, so I dont buy the "Grew into his body" argument. You dont knock out Morales, and then labour past Bradley and Clottey because you were just growing into your body. I think he over reached. Its a known fact that Manny needs to be drinking Protein shakes at 3 AM to make 147, you dont do that unless youre reaching.

Pacquiao had more scope to grow into his frame from the age and weight he started his professional career at. Mayweather weighed a similar weight at the same age the only difference was he was still an amateur.

Floyd could make 147 while partying it up, and going to strip clubs (his words), the other guy has to drink pretein shakes at 3 AM, and you wanna tell me they have the same optimum weight?

I didnt say that. I said its not as straightforward as saying Pacquaio started off at 106lb and is now 147lb. Mayweather started off in the amateurs at 106lbs and stayed amateur longer.

Mayweather has bigger frame and is more suited to welterweight but he levels off at the weight. Hes a small welterweight in todays terms. If he were around in the days when weigh ins happened on the same day he could challenge for the middleweight title and be confident his opponent wouldnt weight too much more than the limit. Nowadays challenging for the middleweight title means he his opponent could weigh far in excess of the middleweight limit.

Strongback wrote:Some of the most respected posters have Mayweather in the Top 10 ever.

The most sensible thing I have read on here  is Floyd can never be rated above your man Ray Leonard.

If you can't at least see an argument for mayweather being around the top 10, then you are in that minority I was referring to strongy  

Leonard is defined by his opponents, which mayweather (notwithstanding any selectivity accusations) hasn't had the opportunity to emulate. Their cv's are chalk and cheese, short but exceptional prime v great longevity.... sums up the futility of  these mythical ATG lists.

Aye, as long as we all agree that Leonard was better and ranks higher, though.

Agreed. Leonard should be ranked higher. Not only does he have a better record he is also the better fighter. The ATG #1.

Surely then the fact that Alvarez fight night weight is bigger than both GGG and Martinez' average fight night weights means that probably isnt the reason Floyd isnt making the move up? Again, Im not really bothered one way or the other... but, even a 21-year old Pacquiao was only fighting at 108lbs, vs 21-year old Super feather weight Floyd...

I personally have no problem Ranking Floyd highly... He has earned it... Its just the double standards, which do me in regarding the guy.

kingraf wrote:Surely then the fact that Alvarez fight night weight is bigger than both GGG and Martinez' average fight night weights means that probably isnt the reason Floyd isnt making the move up? Again, Im not really bothered one way or the other... but, even a 21-year old Pacquiao was only fighting at 108lbs, vs 21-year old Super feather weight Floyd...

Alvarez weighed 171lbs against Trout when the fought at "154lb". Mayweather bargained him to 152lb limit for their fight and according to the reports on the night he weighed 165lb. So the effect of having to make the lower weight had a bigger overall effect by 6lbs potentially.

I dont know what goes through Mayweathers mind other than money and cars and jewellry but he has to be careful with what weight limits he agrees to at the higher weights or else he could end up getting massively outsized. Having the weigh ins the day before the fight leaves it open to be exploited massively by some fighters. Mayweather is disadvantaged by it because he has leveled off as a smallish welterweight who doesnt even need to try to make the welterweight limit.

I would love to see him challenge for the middleweight crown or defend his light middleweight title against a Martinez or a Golovkin but its a serious weight difference he runs the risk of contending with. He was happy enough to let a boxer like Cotto weigh in on the full limit because he knew Cotto would not pile on a huge amount of extra weight but somebody like Martinez could easily enough outweigh him by 20lbs. If the rules were same day weigh in I think he would be more willing to challenge for the middleweight title. But the system doesn't work like that now. Mayweather tends to get the rap for demanding certain weights but its really giant fighters that are fighting outside their fighting weight that are the ones exploiting the system.

I don't think it can be argued against floyd not wanting any part of cotto margarito or Williams at welterweight. Paul Williams couldn't mbuy a fight at the weight and margarito was Frankenstein shuffling around with the tag of most avoided man in boxing.
He fought Ricky hatton and retired.

hogey wrote:There was also rumours of Floyd and PEDs he did not want to fight Manny and pretty much everyone knows it, it was almost funny when Manny did agreed to his drug testing then the problem became the shares of the purse. Reality the fight was never gonna happen because Manny was too big a risk to Floyd precious 0.

And when Pac did agree to testing team Mayweather came up with new conditions such as where Manny could train and where he could take the tests as well as how close to fight night they would run.

Basically only deluded fan-boys think either party shares none of the blame for the fight not happening, sensible intelligent rational people all accept that both parties simply didn't do enough to get the fight on.

Chris has said all that needs to be read on this matter. He is absolutely spot on in his above posts.

Mayweather didn't fancy a piece of Pacquiao back then, it doesn't take a genius to work that out.

Azania, there should be a law preventing people from talking as much guff as you have in this thread. Give it a rest.

Very funny fist.

Love how people seem overly keen to airbrush the fact that pa didn't want strict tests initially. Had he agreed fist wouldn't be insulting me now. The fight would have happened.

They both share responsibility for the fight not happening. But after the collapse of the first scheduled fight the ship had sailed. Random testing was a reasonable request that Floyd stumbled on.

Part two :

http://www.thesweetscience.com/news/articles-frontpage/17291-a-look-back-at-mayweather-alvarez-part-two

Truss isn't unhappy with this article...........because

1. Everybody has the right to an opinion............

2. For every expert that has it in for Floyd there is one who rates him highly...The op has an agenda so like D4 (who he in fairness is a hundred times better than) brings up articles that fight his case........fairplay......

3. Hauser's superb Ali book and superb information gathering..shows he had a real love of 60s and 70s boxing.......and change can be hard on guys...... just like experts who still say Nicklaus hammers Woods etc......

4. Mayweather's opposition has been much better than he's been given credit for..Better than Hagler types who are beyond reproach........and from a more romantic era..

5. I don't pay as much homage as Hazharrison does to the views of so-called experts as they tend to be contradictory to one another and contain bias.........Nat Fleischer is someone Haz has chucked at me in the past and he picked Dempsey to beat Ali.......

But there you go..

Mayweather will always be regarded higher by his contempories than by his elders.......Because everything was better back in the day..........

Sixties was all flower power, love and getting high..............apparently......

But not when you were in Vietnam............

LOL

I try to provide balance to your copious Floyd threads and little more.

Hauser writes with authority on contemporary boxing - he has umpteen books on the subject (as well you know).

This article hits the nail rather perfectly on the head.

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

Ridiculous.


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

This article suits your opinions. Nothing more.

Can I ask Haz of the lists you provided when were they compiled?

I'd wager that none of Jones, Hopkins, Mayweather or Pacquiao feature highly in these things, the ring list was from 2002 for instance before the bulk of the latter threes careers.

"I truly believe I could have banged with Canelo and eventually knocked him out in probably the eighth round, but I could have taken a lot of punishment also, which could have messed my career up to where I wouldn't have been able to fight four more fights.

"It hurts my feelings to look at [Muhammad] Ali's situation. He fought for the people, to please them. You've got to fight to please yourself first. Self-preservation."

Once again - perhaps the most successful fighter of all time but certainly not one of the greatest - nowhere near.

How does that quote back that up?

azania wrote:This article suits your opinions. Nothing more.

And those of most rational people.

I don't see anything wrong with that comment. Why should he take punishment to score a KO? In fact the art of boxing is to hit and not get hit. No-one does it better than the great Floyd Mayweather Junior. He has perfected the art of boxing.

ATG 3 for me.

hazharrison wrote:Once again - perhaps the most successful fighter of all time but certainly not one of the greatest - nowhere near.

Because he can win without taking punishment?

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Can I ask Haz of the lists you provided when were they compiled?

I'd wager that none of Jones, Hopkins, Mayweather or Pacquiao feature highly in these things, the ring list was from 2002 for instance before the bulk of the latter threes careers.

As recent as there is: Boxing.com was this year, for instance.

You don't speak for most people or know their opinions.

Scottrf wrote:

hazharrison wrote:Once again - perhaps the most successful fighter of all time but certainly not one of the greatest - nowhere near.

Because he can win without taking punishment?

Because he wins without taking risks (it is the same way he has managed his career).

Then Haz lets compare the ring 80 list to espns list in 2007.

Cerdan is as high as 25 with Monzon down at 45 on ESPNs then the Ring has Monzon at 11 with Cerdan at 77, what exactly can we draw from that?

hazharrison wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

hazharrison wrote:Once again - perhaps the most successful fighter of all time but certainly not one of the greatest - nowhere near.

Because he can win without taking punishment?

Because he wins without taking risks (it is the same way he has managed his career).  

Winning without risk is greater than winning with risk. How he's managed his career is a separate issue.

hazharrison wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

hazharrison wrote:Once again - perhaps the most successful fighter of all time but certainly not one of the greatest - nowhere near.

Because he can win without taking punishment?

Because he wins without taking risks (it is the same way he has managed his career).  

Absolute garbage, you cannot mark him down for being defensively minded, what utter rubbish.

hazharrison wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

hazharrison wrote:Once again - perhaps the most successful fighter of all time but certainly not one of the greatest - nowhere near.

Because he can win without taking punishment?

Because he wins without taking risks (it is the same way he has managed his career).  

Pathetic.

azania wrote:You don't speak for most people or know their opinions.

There is usually a trend: respected writers/experts don't rate Floyd as highly as Floyd fans on forums. I merely attempt to redress the balance from the drivel I often see trotted out by the Mayweather fans that post on here.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Then Haz lets compare the ring 80 list to espns list in 2007.

Cerdan is as high as 25 with Monzon down at 45 on ESPNs then the Ring has Monzon at 11 with Cerdan at 77, what exactly can we draw from that?

That Floyd is the greatest despite avoiding his toughest challenges? Would you rather I posted that?

azania wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

hazharrison wrote:Once again - perhaps the most successful fighter of all time but certainly not one of the greatest - nowhere near.

Because he can win without taking punishment?

Because he wins without taking risks (it is the same way he has managed his career).  

Pathetic.

It's a valid point as backed by Hauser. Greatness can also be measured by the risks/challenges a fighter takes.

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

hazharrison wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Then Haz lets compare the ring 80 list to espns list in 2007.

Cerdan is as high as 25 with Monzon down at 45 on ESPNs then the Ring has Monzon at 11 with Cerdan at 77, what exactly can we draw from that?

That Floyd is the greatest despite avoiding his toughest challenges? Would you rather I posted that?

Or you could acknowledge that such major discrepancies make these lists largely pointless.

hazharrison wrote:

azania wrote:You don't speak for most people or know their opinions.

There is usually a trend: respected writers/experts don't rate Floyd as highly as Floyd fans on forums. I merely attempt to redress the balance from the drivel I often see trotted out by the Mayweather fans that post on here.

Nonsense. You said most rational people would support your views. You are not redressing any balance. Read what you write. Criticising Floyd for not wanting to take punishment. Seriously warped thinking from an irrational perspective.

I bet you appreciate Pep.

hazharrison wrote:

azania wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

hazharrison wrote:Once again - perhaps the most successful fighter of all time but certainly not one of the greatest - nowhere near.

Because he can win without taking punishment?

Because he wins without taking risks (it is the same way he has managed his career).  

Pathetic.

It's a valid point as backed by Hauser. Greatness can also be measured by the risks/challenges a fighter takes.

The risk is taking the challenge. Do you think Ali stood toe to toe with Frazier because he wanted to prove how tough he was or because he had no choice?

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

hazharrison wrote:Once again - perhaps the most successful fighter of all time but certainly not one of the greatest - nowhere near.

Because he can win without taking punishment?

Because he wins without taking risks (it is the same way he has managed his career).  

Absolute garbage, you cannot mark him down for being defensively minded, what utter rubbish.

I admire his stance - his objectives have always been to maximise earnings and minimise punishment. It's an admirable ethos - smart and successful.

It also illustrates his approach to match-making - which is the point that has been lost on yourself and the other diehards.

hazharrison wrote:Greatness can also be measured by the risks/challenges a fighter takes.

Not while in the ring.

You're trying to back up a point Haz that the quote you provided has no relevance to.

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

Of course it's all opinion, however, I'll take expert opinion over Floyd fans on forums all day.

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

Hammersmith harrier wrote:You're trying to back up a point Haz that the quote you provided has no relevance to.

That isn't correct - separate point.

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

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

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

hazharrison wrote:

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

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

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

azania wrote:

hazharrison wrote:

azania wrote:You don't speak for most people or know their opinions.

There is usually a trend: respected writers/experts don't rate Floyd as highly as Floyd fans on forums. I merely attempt to redress the balance from the drivel I often see trotted out by the Mayweather fans that post on here.

Nonsense. You said most rational people would support your views. You are not redressing any balance. Read what you write. Criticising Floyd for not wanting to take punishment. Seriously warped thinking from an irrational perspective.

I bet you appreciate Pep.

I do indeed. Far greater than Floyd.