Who was the better fighter: PBF or Pea?

you know very little about boxing

 

I agree that Floyd was better and like you don't find it really close....however everything else you posted is extreme, trolling or fan boyish biased.

Better at everything....not quite.

 

Really? And just who did Floyd beat as good as close to prime Chavez?

 

Does not really matter since Pea didn't beat Chavez either officially and perhaps otherwise

 

I can't imagine Floyd losing to a fading 140 pound Chavez. You can argue that it's a better unofficial win than anything Floyd has, but after that Whitaker's resume stops looking so great.

 

I'm not a fan of either guy. I rooted for both to lose for most of their careers. I found them both extremely boring for the most part. You could count on one hand the number of entertaining fights either had.

They were both safety first fighters.

But people are crazy if they think Pernell Whitaker was better at Floyd Mayweather at anything. Pernell didn't beat better fighters. He didn't score more dominant wins. He didn't score bigger KOs. He didn't have a better chin. He wasn't a top fighter as long. Of the two, Mayweather had a few more entertaining fights.

That's not trolling. It's the truth.

What "skills" did Whitaker have that Mayweather didn't? Everyone saying Whitaker was more "skillful" offered nothing specific. Did he have a better jab? A better hook? A stronger power shot? A better chin? Did he block punches better? Did he do better against larger fighters? Did he have faster hands? Better footwork? More will to win? What???? Any specifics at all? Because I don't see it.

Like I said, I never cared for either guy. But Whitaker was in no way better than Mayweather. I watched them both for their entire careers.

Comparing Whitaker with Shane Mosley would probably more apples to apples comparison.

Comparing Mayweather to Whitaker is easy. Mayweather was much better all the way around.

 

What? Are you saying 13 years and nearly 90 fights into his career that Chavez was "prime"?

Four months after the Whitaker fight, Frankie Randall actually beat Chavez far more handily and even floored him. Is Frankie Randall better than Mayweather, too?

Are you a troll or are you just stupid?

Jesus.

 

Whitaker fought the better opposition. Floyd was a cherry picker

 

Ah, the old Mayweather-Whitaker debate.

At 135, I'd back Whitaker over Mayweather in a super close fight - Pea is an absolute head-to-head monster at Lightweight. Someone above was asking for specifics in terms of what Whitaker did better than Mayweather; well, a peak Pernell at 135 certainly had the better body attack for starters, and was even more defensively brilliant because, as others have pointed out, he didn't need to be behind his jab, on the move or in his shell to be elusive. He could stand on a handkerchief and do that.

But at 147, I'd go with Mayweather without too much hesitation. Whitaker seemed undersized as a Welter, never really growing in to the division solidly like Mayweather did. He always looked like a blown-up Lightweight, whereas Mayweather looked a genuine, solid 147 pounder. As a result Whitaker trimmed down his attacking arsenal even more at the higher weight, sometimes winning fights with his jab alone (like against Vasquez at 154, for example), and he wasn't quite as fast as he'd been as a Lightweight, either.

As for their respective resumes...I've got to give it to Floyd. Whitaker's highest highs are arguably greater than Mayweather's. However, Mayweather has a lot more wins from that next bracket down and avoided some of the less than stellar moments which Pea occasionally allowed himself to slump to. A little past his best and slacking in training he might have been, but regardless of that Whitaker had no business struggling so badly with a fighter like Rivera, and though I tend to think he probably deserved a draw or a very, very narrow win over Oscar to keep his title, he did make things a little harder for himself in that fight than he need have done.

Mayweather dedicated himself to the game in a way that Whitaker didn't, and as such was still putting on exemplary performances at an age where Whitaker was washed up. I think his record surpasses Pernell's, and the aforementioned head-to-head consideration ain't quite enough to turn it back round in Pernell's favour.

Huge Whitaker fan, less so Mayweather. But I think Mayweather deserves to be remembered as the greater of the pair overall.

 

Mcgirt is a better boxer then anyone Mayweather ever faced.
He also beat up Mayweathers Uncle who was a dam good fighter who became a two division champ.
From 85 to 95 nobody beat Pea-except the robbery in the first Ramirez bout. And nobody came CLOSE to beating Pea.

 

I don't if you can say that Pea's defense was a lot better than Floyds ... It was different .. where Pea probably had the better upper body movement, and FM had the incredible blocking ability .. it's actually a coin flip for me

 

Mayweather wasn't better at everything, shoot, he wasn't even better at most things.

Pea was better to the body (DECIDEDLY SO)
Pea has better upper body movement
Pea has better Lateral Movement
Pea's jab is better and bosses fights for him more than May's does
Pea throws more combinations
Pea is better fighting in the pocket

Those are just to name some, and to even insinuate May is better at everything is blatantly biases, or worse, ******ed.

I'm curious what you'll say, these victories that Whitaker had, give me the comparable victory for May. I'm not just talking the names or resume being comparable, I'm also talking about May winning as easily or convincingly as Pea did.

Nelson
Haugen
Ramirez 2
Chavez
McGirt 2
Floyd Sr.
Nazario

Bonus: Which fighter has May fought that was of the caliber of a Prime Oscar, while also May being well past his best and yet doing so well. Which fight of May's was like this?

 

I disagree. Pernell Whitaker's "jab" wasn't better. He didn't throw more combinations. Whitaker's lateral movement consisted him going for a walk occasionally. He didn't dance around the ring. You're grasping at straws.

And, seriously, who did Mayweather beat as convincingly as Whitaker beat GREG HAUGEN? HAUGEN? These are "the big names" you want to compare?

Haugen wasn't any better than Angel Manfredy or Arturo Gatti. Did Mayweather dominate Gatti or Manfredy easier than Whitaker dominated HAUGEN? Christ.

You've got Whitaker fighting Floyd Sr? Whitaker never fought him. Are you talking about Roger Mayweather, who floored Whitaker?

Who floored Floyd? Did Diego Corrales? Was Corrales better than Roger? Who was more dominant? Floyd versus Corrales or Whitaker vs Roger?

Do you really want me to continue? Did Whitaker "dominate" Azumah Nelson when Nelson moved up for one fight? I thought it was pretty competitive. Did Pernell dominate Nelson more than Mayweather floored and "dominated" Juan Manuel Marquez when he moved up for one fight? No?

These questions you're asking are stupid. Thanks for proving my point for me.

Hell, if Whitaker beat someone like a 28-year-old Zab Judah ... it might register as the biggest win of Pernell's career. On Mayweather's resume, that Judah win is an afterthought. A footnote. Because he beat so many bigger names.

Throw in Judah, Chop Chop Corley and Sharmba Mitchell, again, they'd rate among Pernell's "GREATEST" wins. On Floyd's record, zip.

We haven't even begun talking about guys like Saul Alvarez and Miguel Cotto and Manny Pacquaio, who are all Hall of Fame bound. Or Ricky Hatton and Shane Mosley and Oscar De La Hoya and Genaro Hernandez.

The fact that you have to include names Whitaker didn't even beat ... shows how desperate you are to pump up Whitaker.

Whitaker wasn't as good a fighter. Whitaker didn't have as a good a career. Whitaker didn't beat better fighters.

Mayweather is superior to Whitaker. The simple fact that you're including a total nobody like JUAN NAZARIO on your list speaks volumes. Where does Juan Nazario RANK on the all-time lightweight list? I don't know if they make lists long enough to include him.

And he's one of Whitaker's "big" wins?

Sorry. I know that probably burns some people, but facts are facts.