Of course fictional match ups are all about opinions but lets approach this from a position of logic guys. Mayweather has always fought smaller guys because he's naturally a smaller guy himself. Bigger guys he compels to shed weight. Fair enough. He can call the shots. The closest he has ever come to fighting a genuine middleweight was when he fought De La Hoya who managed to win an alphabet version. Of course when Hoya met a real middle in Hopkins he was smashed and as good a middle as Bernard was he wasn't as murderous a puncher as Hagler and for most of his career at the weight he could have easily made light middle himself.

You can't defeat logic with blithe assertions about kryptonite or magic. Some leaps are feasible. Some just aren't. It's like it was feasible and indeed logical for Jones to take on a small limited heavy in Ruiz and beat him up. He would never have stepped in the ring with Lewis and if he did Lewis would have got to him. As would Hagler with Mayweather.

Don't forget in their day many of the weigh ins were on the day. Fighting at middle guys like Hagler and someone like Hearns could have easily weighed 175-180 weighing in the day before.

It does matter who ducked who when assessing legacies. The fantastic four from the 80's partly got their reputations through fighting each other and other great fighters.

However the historical match up business is slightly different. For example, both sj and myself have given chapter and verse on why in our view Duran gets to Mayweather and beats him. You can't legitimately come back in such a debate and say Mayweather beats everybody because I say so.

How does Mayweather win that fight? How does he counter the foot speed  and movement of a fighter equally fast if not faster in that department? If Duran gets inside as we argue he will how does Mayweather keep him off? Duran will be throwing multiple combinations at the same time he's rolling away from Mayweather's own punches. We know at lightweight and welter he had a chin of stone but Duran has two bites at the cherry with Mayweather. If he catches him flush there could be trouble but like I said he was especially effective going to the body. That's where I think he breaks Mayweather.

In essence I posted before the fight that the image of Canelo was a mirage. He was never going to have the speed to match Mayweather. The Trout fight proved that. People are getting carried away. It's a natural reaction to the bullshiit and bluster of 2.5 brain cells but let's keep this in perspective.

Tommy Hearns would be a nightmare opponent for Floyd, like he was for Duran and sugar Ray

On what grounds could you say Hearns would KO Floyd. What makes you think that? Floyd has never even been knocked down. None of them would of KO'd Floyd because Floyd doesn't get knocked out, knocked down or beaten. Some of the comments on here are laughable and its the same sort of people that no doubt think Maradona is better than Messi. The lager louts like duran wouldn't stand a cat in hells chance

I love the fact that ray "fought the wrong game" in montreal. Of course people forget and Ray is on tape saying it "we knew Duran would blow up in between fights so we wanted to get him in the ring quickly" Forget the scorecards as well Duran comfortably beat him and Ray knew it.

Duran was nowhere near the same as Leonard himself said. If you're bringing up one match Castillo Floyd doesnt sit well

This is getting to the ridiculous,mayweather would never have fought hagler just as he still wouldn't fight pacman(I think he would beat him know). He would never fight hagler and wouldn't beat hagler.

I don't know why people keep going on about Hagler?

Duke

This is why:

Mayweather would of schooled Duran. An easy nights work. Sugar Ray Leonard would of been a good test but again Mayweather wins. Hagler v Mayweather - Mayweather wins. Hearns v Mayweather - Mayweather wins. See a theme happening here. It doesn't matter who you put in the ring with him he will make them look ordinary and that goes for all the past greats

Haha, back in the hole. Mess.

Yeh I mean I don't understand the Hagler fight even being discussed Optimist. He was an out and out middleweight, pointless even for fantasy debate.

A prime Mosley would have finished Mayweather off.

lincthesinc 20 Sep 13 10:37 
A prime Mosley would have finished Mayweather off.

strange that almost every other sport has, maybe not much has changed but i'd find it hard to believe that boxers of today train exactly the same as fighters from a different generation, strength and conditioning has dramatically improved in sports as a whole over the last decade or 2.  not to mention the huge improvements in nutrition and diet that absolutely has an affect on performance. maybe some individual fighters train the same as always with the inclusion of better nutrition but absolutely not the majority or even close.

I'd go further than Zazu. This whole improvement in nutrition, diet and training is to a large extent a red herring. Where there have been radical improvements in some sports they have largely arisen due to one of two factors with these being specific technical and participation advances and more controversially the improvement in juice, avoidance and the extension of the juice into all aspects of sport where money is a factor.

Split into two the technical and participation advances are easily explained. Certain events have leant themselves to improvements in technique. An obvious example of this is something like the Fosbury Flop in high jumping. There have been many others. Which is partly why we've seen continued advances in technique based sports like for example decathlon despite few athletes being as naturally talented as say Daley Thompson.

Participation advances sees records tumble. The wider the gene pool you draw from the more likely you are to see improvement. There were relatively few African long distance runners in the 70's. Now they dominate almost totally. If there had been advances across the board we should be seeing British marathon runners running quicker than they were then. They aren't. The best times came in the 70's-90's decades with current runners unable to get near those times.

The second aspect is the more interesting in some ways. The proliferation of the juice into all facets of money orientated sport is phenomenal. At one time the cold war and national prestige arising from competing political philosophies saw athletes as the guinea pigs for outrageous manipulations. Arguably our greatest ever runner is a mere footnote in history (Kathy Smallwood) because she sought to compete against these athletes who were doped up to the eyeballs. Anybody who wants to see what this was like at its worst should google a photo of someone like Kratochvilova in her prime. She had muscles on her muscles. In 15 years the world 400 metres running record dropped like a stone by over 3 seconds. Totally monstrous.

How does this apply to boxing? Juice like I say. There have been plenty of boxers from about the 90's onwards who saw the strength benefits and took advantage. Boxers are no more skilled than they were then. Arguably with the demise of true artisan trainers from the golden age there is a less high skill level measured across the board There are no great added benefits to nutrition. As long as any athlete has a balanced diet, keeps himself in shape in between fights and doesn't seek to drop too much weight in the run up to fights then the fad for this and that supplement is just that a fad.

The African distance runner analogy works in reverse. Back in the 30's and 40's particularly at the lower weights there were many more times the sheer numbers of competitive boxers and they were refining their skills more consistently both inside and outside the ring.

In conclusion there is often improvement in sport but it doesn't always happen. British athletes can't get within 3 seconds of Coe's 800 metres best and people marvel at Floyd's ability to avoid to avoid and ride punches when back in the day any trainer worth his salt could teach a skill based fighter such techniques to a proficient level pretty quickly.

Me?

I bet the farm on Mayweather in that fight. Hatton was no more a welter than I am a brain surgeon.

still he would perform better with a really good diet,there's no doubting that. no matter how small. maybe it's overhyped for boxing, but most other sports have benefited tremendously from adv ances made in the last decade or 2

It's all opinions but I don't give Tito a hope in hell. When they fought Hopkins could have made light middle and he was not only too good for Tito but too strong. Tito was a fine welter. A bit like Oscar. He couldn't take it up to middle at Hagler's level.

Is that Oscar who got whipped by the smaller no good scambooga Mayweather or another one?

Like Cotto was past his best at the age of 30??????unbeaten at 154 till money went boom.......I think Alvarez was past his best aswell over u plum.

You lost everyones respect when you couldn't raise a £500 provvy to bet with me now your a laughing stock on here.I do love bullying you on here you mess of a boy.