Based on Mayweather/Mosley results, how would he have done a few years ago?

Mayweather developed a bit of a reputation for dodging the biggest names at welterweight. He fought Baldomir instead of Margarito. He fought De la Hoya instead of Cotto. He fought Hatton instead Paul Williams. Then he retired. This was the deepest the welterweight division had been in decades and despite campaigning at welterweight, he never participated in any of the efforts to clean up the division, which only started to happen after he left.

People insisted he fled rather than face any of the half dozen boxers who were true threats to him.

Fast forward almost two years and the division went through quite a bit of shaking out. Cotto fell, Margarito fell, Williams fell, avenged, then moved up, Mosley fell, then rose, Cintron fell then moved up. Suddenly that depth that marked the welterweight division became rather thin.

Floyd returned.

Again, people accused him of being opportunistic, of waiting until the division's threats were already handled by other people. People lined up at the firing range, insisting that Floyd avoided that golden age because he would have surely lost at some point. Williams would have been to long and active, Mosley would have been too strong, Margarito would have been too tough and pressuring, Cotto would have been too pressuring and well-schooled.

And then there was Pacquiao.

Fast forward six months and Mayweather easily defeats Mosley, one of the last men standing in the welterweight division. He easily defeats him, when Margarito could not, and with an ease far beyond what a prime Cotto was able to do.

So what say you, people? Does this make up for not fighting Margarito, or Cotto or Clottey or Williams? Does this prove that he would have beaten them all with the same ease he handled Mosley? Is it OK to not personally clean up a division when you beat the Hell out of a guy who emerged from the shakeout as champion? Was Floyd really avoiding these challenges after all, or was he actually right when he said they wouldn't have been worthy in the first place? Do you forgive him now, or do you blame him for lacking the self-confidence (or, alternately, possessing the hubris) to not even test himself against people he may very well have defeated with absolute and consumate ease?

Assess!