Shakur Stevenson has considered how the respective styles of Floyd Mayweather and Terence Crawford would gel in a prime-for-prime showdown.
Several similarities can be drawn between both all-time greats, such as the fact that they retired as unbeaten five-division world champions.
On the flip side, though, it could be said that their extraordinary skills, while being somewhat comparable, were most effective against different styles of opponents.
Some have made the observation that Mayweather, for instance, would encounter moments of difficulty when facing southpaws in the early portion of his career.
As a fighter who could switch seamlessly between stances, it is then tempting to suggest that Crawford would have posed major issues for his countryman.
It must also be said, however, that ‘Bud’ occasionally allowed complacency to get the better of him, perhaps most notably in fights against Yuriorkis Gamboa and Egidijus Kavaliauskas.
Despite defeating both by stoppage, Crawford was made to overcome the slick style of Gamboa, and climb off the canvas – in what was ultimately ruled a no-knockdown – against ‘Mean Machine’.
Based on those two performances, and Mayweather’s apparent difficulty with southpaws, Stevenson has told The Agnew Podcast that it is practically impossible to select a winner at welterweight.
“It’s just hard to say. With both of them guys, they different. I think Floyd, early on in his career, he struggled with southpaws.
“I feel like ‘Bud’ is gonna be a southpaw and probably the best southpaw he’s ever [come up] against.
“But then I’ve seen ‘Bud’ have little issues with guys like ‘Mean Machine’, who was orthodox, and Gamboa was winning some rounds.
“It’s a 50/50 thing [with Mayweather and Crawford] – you just never know who would come in on-point and win that fight.”
While Stevenson highlights Mayweather’s history against southpaws as a point of weakness, it is difficult to ignore the fact that against Manny Pacquiao, a naturally aggressive lefty, the American was able to produce a 12-round masterclass.