Because everyone who has seen the fight knows that Whitaker won the fight. It's one of the biggest high-profile robberies of all time. Not to mention he was just better.
Chavez did well up to a certain level but Pernell won the same way at every level. Just a little better fighter. But Chavez fought them all.
just 2 years ago people would call people idiots for even mentioning pacquiao fighting hatton or de la hoya. then manny smoked their boots..
be that as it may, langford and walker won significant fights around welter all the way to HW... what hearns had done has been done before...
Not really. Different era and more organized when Hearns was around Langford? Come on. It is good that you bring up the old fighters, but in a way it also does not really pertain to modern boxing. Hearns would have had fun pounding the guy up in the early years. Hearns had 163 amatuer fights. Not winning a world title but fighting higher does not mean that much. That is what happen with one of them. Hearns won the welterweight championship over a legend champion and then 11 years later beat another legend at light heavyweight. That rarely is done and Pacman has not done it. Not against someone as good as Virgil Hill with 10 defenses. Hatton was not as good as Hill, but he had a good following. But a good following does not make him a great fighter.
sam langford was beat the best p4p fighter that time in joe walcott at 147 and went on to be one of the top 3 lightheavy of all time... same with walker,one of the top 10 WW of all-time. He drew with future HW champ in sharkey and many thought that walker was robbed in that brutal fight what hearns has done had been done before...he is just a throwback... manny pacquiao creates his one legacy. You can hardly fight a boxer that has significant win from 112-147...and manny was the universally recognzed champ in 112 and 140
you mean Hearns right? I think maybe people are thinking it is Hatton who is compared to Pacman because Hearns was so much greater than Manny. Hearns was iconic.