Well, main point would evolve about Whitaker not losing to guys he should have beaten like Holyfield and Barrera (must admit I'm not too knowledgeable on Lopez/these really small guys, he might be up there as well). Also Holyfield I don't enjoy ranking much due to the asterisk that "Evan Fields" put on his career. He certainly is an contender, as is Barrera. And even DLH - who I think is the only one outside of Holy and maybe Pac who actually always took the hard way and tried to fight the best, complete opposite to Jones and Mayweather.
Very highly, as he was a great fighter, top 10 maybe top 5 lightweight. Great defensive skills and very physically strong, although he didn't have the greatest resume.
No because Arguello's win over Billy Costello at 140 is an accomplishment, not a huge one but far greater than Chavez win over Gamache, and obviously Nelson didn't win a single fight. A better example would be Winky vs Hopkins
But Whitaker lost to Ramirez a fight he shouldn't have lost. You can call it a robbery but the overall point stands
I would call Wilfredo Rivera more of an inexcusable slip up even though he got the official win. One other thing is that the manner in which he lost to Tito hurts. A lot of other guys like Oba Carr, Campas, Vargas, and Reid were much more competitive, and we know what Oscar did. It would have been fine for him to lose competitively at that point in his career, but it was one sided.
Yeah either way point stands. Whitaker's consistency is not much of an advantage over Holyfield and Barrera
I don't think people consider Pryor's victory over Arguello a great win because Arguello would go on to win against a guy who won a world title at the same weight as Pryor. People consider Pryor's win to be a great one because of who Arguello was at that time - a legitimate three-weight world champion who had only lost 1 fight in the previous 8 years and had dominated each division he was in. I think Arguello's fight with Costello is an irrelevancy and has no bearing on the quality of Pryor's victory, just as Chavez's fight with Joey Camche has zero bearing on either Chavez's or Whitaker's legacy and the outcome of their fight in 1993. What matters (and why I made the comparison with Chavez and Arguello) is that Chavez had had at least an equally impressive career to Arguello when he moved up to face Whitaker so Sweet Pea's victory was as legit as they come, particularly when you consider the time they fought. To say otherwise just seems like revisionism to me. The same logic I'm applying to Chavez and Arguello is the same I'd apply to Nelson, albeit on a slighly lesser level as Nelson wasn't quite as accomplished as either of them, but was still at the top of his game at the point he challenged Whitaker.
I do call it a robbery and don't hold it against him at all. The first Rivera fight indeed can be hold against him. However, it also came at the end of his career and he did set the record straight in the rematch. You really hold Tito against him? What do you make of Holyfield's loss to Larry Donald? When anywhere in his prime did Whitaker lose like Barrera (vs. Jones) or Holyfield (vs. Moorer)?
The Tito and Larry Donald fights aren't analagous. Holyfield was in his forties with a shoulder injury. Whitaker was in his mid thirties and fell off from doing cocaine and not training. Whitaker's fall off hurts his standing because a lot of it was due to lack of dedication and other greats pulled off high level wins at that age. No pass given.
No it doesn't stand, because he won that fight. Anybody with two eyes knows he won that fight. So I guess you believe Holyfield drew with Lewis the first time out to huh?
He already did just that when he fought Hoya. He was already past his best, past his best division and partying like crazy... yet he still imo beat or ran very close, a prime, ATG in Hoya. So he certainly did that.
And if he were dedicated to the sport he might have won the two or three extra rounds needed to beat Oscar. His resume is light in the a ss as a result of his negligence. ATG talent, but resume lacks. You talk about his lifestyle and subsequent fall off at a relatively young age as if it's a positive.
You're talking about perception but we have the benefits of hindsight to analyze their resumes, you can call it revisionism but why wouldn't you use all the information?
Agree. Nobody beat Whitaker until he was 35 years old .Holyfield was more exciting but Sweet Pea was on another level when it comes to dominance. They both moved up in weight and claimed titles along the way. Both faced stiff comp.