You've got Whitaker the number-one Lightweight ever ... for beating Greg Haugen and Juan Nazario? And you've got him number-four at welter OVER EVERYONE WHO HAS EVER FOUGHT THERE for beating Buddy McGirt and nobody else? Instead of thanks for playing, can I change my response to go away? :hi: I know earlier I said if anyone ranks Pernell Whitaker somewhere, put Floyd Mayweather one spot ahead of Pernell ... because Floyd's record and achievements are so much better. But I didn't realize I'd come across someone so delusional they'd rank Whitaker that high all-time in those divisions. You, my friend, have no clue at all. See ya.:huh:-good
if i was to do a list with criteria just based on film, which i think is how lufcrazy does it, then i would have pea top 3 too.
I can also see why people rate fighters on talent ... it's difficult not to. But when comparing people who have talent who also translated that into big wins and record-shattering achievements ... against people who have have talent but far fewer big wins ... I don't see rating the guy who didn't achieve nearly as much higher. And even head-to-head, I don't see how Whitaker is any clear favorite. (I can't see him winning at all against Mayweather.) Whereas, in terms of accomplishments and wins against quality of opposition, Mayweather is by far the more successful. I can appreciate both guys, but, honestly, I only watched them fight to see them both lose. I prefer sluggers. But, as a fan of neither, to me Mayweather was clearly the better of two and shouldn't be rated below Whitaker at all. In any division they both fought in. The records and opponents and wins and losses simply don't support rating Whitaker ahead of him. But, to each his own. Gotta go. Peace.