Is Whitaker in your Top 10 All time Fighters?

Dominance is not necessarily correlated to head to head capability. If you dominate a ****-poor division, are you necessarily better/more effective than a guy who consistently fought the best, winning some and losing some? Not saying that's what Whitaker did or anything, but the point is there. Does Ricardo Lopez deserve to be rated above Sammy Angott, for example? Depends on your subjective opinion.

Rankings in general are that way. I just do them for fun nowadays because they'll always end up inconsistent.

 

This is pretty much how it should be. H2H is a bit more than a tiebreaker for me(More of a bonus point).

But resume and achievements should be 95% of how you judge a fighter.

 

If you ignore division quality when you rank dominance, your probably going to have to put Wlad with Louis by the time he retires, as he isn't losing anytime soon(especially not fighting guys like Mormeck).

Dominance is great, but who you beat while you were dominant matters quite a bit.

I think you are absolutely right, Moochie.

 

Why does it mean that he should automatically be thrown into a top 15? It's not as if a certain set of accomplishments or showing of ability guarantees a specific numerical ranking. It's a lot more complicated when you consider all of the great fighters and what they brought to the table.

 

Each of those men fought a far higher quality of opponent than Whitaker, and Armstrong was even more dominant. Maybe you oughta choose different examples.

 

i've missed loads here

top ten is difficult to achieve because of the stacked history we have to deal with, what I will say is that Whitaker was as good as there has been, and he was ****ing ridiculous in terms of how complete he was

 

Not really. Duran, Hagler, Hearns, and Benitez (3 of them in their primes, one of them a larger opponent) are without question of a higher caliber than Chavez, Nelson, McGirt, and Ramirez (only one of them was maybe still in his prime).

It's a lot more difficult to dominate a much higher class of opponent. That goes without saying. Whitaker didn't dominate the McGirt the first time around, either.

I think I've said my piece on the dominance part of the equation already. In pretty much every post I've directed at you.

 

Well if it only mattered how much someone dominated theit competition then Ricardo Lopez would break everyone top ten.

 

You're getting too hung up on specific numberical values within subjective and differing ranking systems.

To be totally honest, you're beginning to sound a bit like a desperate nut hugger now.

 

I'm happy for Whitaker to sit alongside Ray Leonard.

That said, I thought Ray just lost to Hagler and Whitaker just edged DLH.

 

I do think Whitaker sits right alongside Leonard, for what it's worth. I was just pointing out that dominance over a lesser quality of fighter doesn't mean you automatically deserve a higher ranking than someone who struggled with better fighters. Ability-wise they're on the same level. Leonard beat better opposition. Whitaker was more dominant against his. All things considered, they're neck and neck.