A reader left this comment on my Shane Mosley vs Floyd Mayweather fight report accusing me of ?Floyd Bashing?:
Ben- although I consider this to be a fair article, most of your writing has been full of Floyd bashing. When you write about Mayweather, you are overly critical. This Mayweather victory was a chance for you to formally counter some of the negative and demeaning things you?ve said about Floyd, but you failed to do so. I think you are a good writer and you intend to be fair and balanced, but your dislike for Floyd doesn?t permit your good intentions to materialize. You?ve mentioned ?eating your words? about Floyd in previous articles?now is your time to do it. Formal recognition of your previous negative statements is overdue. Time to ?man-up? and apologize. Show that you are fair and balanced.
On the heels of his biggest victory, show that you can be as positive as you have been negative. NOBODY predicted a lop-sided victory for Floyd in this fight. Though as usual, the haters always claim ?his opponent was handpicked and they saw it coming?. I?ve seen the exact same post facto comments after every victory since Gatti.
P.S. If you are unsure which of your previous statements I take exception to, I?m willing to point them out to you. There are boatloads.
I thought it was worth posting this comment in a new article because many people who have been critical of Mayweather are accused of being ?haters?. I have certainly been critical of Mayweather in the past but still fail to see why they should be deemed ?negative? or ?demeaning?. When Mayweather fought people I didn?t feel were any sort of threat to him I certainly admit to calling him out on it.
Mayweather has consistently not fought the best fighters in his division for many years (can you name a number one ranked fighter that he has fought after Jose Luis Castillo?) so really don?t see why I have anything to apologize for. I?m giving Mayweather full credit for his sublime display against Shane Mosley, a man I and many others considered a very serious threat. I felt Mosley was the number two welterweight in the world after Manny Pacquiao and even at 38, a top pound for pound fighter in the sport. I believe Mayweather?s performance was so good I?d slightly favor him in a bout with Pacquiao, despite previously stating the opposite.
Does this mean I think Mayweather is the greatest boxer since Sugar Ray Robinson? Hell no.
He?s a superbly gifted technician and a once in generation talent, but remaining unbeaten and having great skill does not make you the greatest thing since sliced bread. The greatest fighters all have losses on the records ? if they don?t, they simply haven?t fought the best. There are several fighters I would have favored to beat Mayweather if he had fought them at their best. I believe a 2000 version of DeLaHoya would have narrowly outpointed Mayweather, and the 2002 version of Vernon Forrest would have beaten him fairly decisively. I also think Shane Mosley would have given him a far, far better fight had they fought at light weight (I might even make him a favorite) and Winky Wright at 154 would have given him absolute fits. But Mayweather never fought the best at their best so I won?t join the minions of fans who genuinely believe he is the second coming of Christ.
If Mayweather beats Pacquaio, it will do a lot for his legacy. He will have beaten an all time great at the very top of his game who many believe to still be the best fighter in the sport. But it doesn?t change the fact that Mayweather hasn?t consistently challenged himself in the same way fighters like Sugar Ray Leonard, Roberto Duran, Tommy Hearns, Marvin Hagler, Pernell Whitaker and Julio Cesar Chavez did. All of those fighters fought each other at their peaks and all of them lost.
Unbeaten records in boxing should be viewed with a healthy dose of skepticism, and Floyd Mayweather, no matter how good he looks, is no exception.
