A prime Pernell Whittaker.

Personally I'd say a lock top 5. It's very hard to say who the absolute best is, even if the consensus is Robinson.
It's really a matter of taste once you reach those very lofty heights.

 

if he had the punch how many weight classes would he have gone up would he of been a modern day langford ,so yes he would of had a shot

 

That's very true. Well said.
I think that's partly what surprised Chavez - Whitaker's body strength. Chavez always said Whitaker would be tough, but I think he thought after a few rounds Whitaker would be through.
The perception at the time was that Whitaker was quite frail, but that proved to be completely off the mark.

 

He knew he was good. Nobody needs to tell him that.

 

Exactly. People (rightfully) wax lyrical about Pea's reflexes and elusiveness, but the first McGirt fight proved that he had deceptive strength and durability for a man with such a small frame, and his infighting skills were, to my mind, the thing that makes him so special. There have been many other men in boxing history with truly sublime talent in one or two areas of the Sweet Science (Duran, Jones), but Sweet Pea could jab, move and box on the outside with such style and grace that it can justifiably be called absolutely sexual, AND he could also plant his head on someone's shoulder, stand in the eye of the storm, and kick up a ruckus with men wielding serious natural size advantages over him.

 

The footage of Langford available justifies his ranking ahead of Whitaker? Teeto is asking for "best", as in the most skilled that have been viewed on film, not necessarily "greatest". Otherwise I'd agree with you.

 

Anyways, I'll be back later to post an in-depth reply. I'm out to play tennis right now. The real man's sport.

 

This content is protected

 

Whitaker was one of the best fighters ever in his prime. His whole skillset and performances support this, IMO. From around 89-91 he was a serious ombre inside the ring. His performance against Ramirez in the rematch was up there with his showings against Nelson and Haugen. His defensive skills, high punch output, and technical ability made for an awesome boxing machine. A case could be made that he was better than Robinson when it came to ability and all round skills, apart from power. He just never fought the same competition. Just because he fought over 40 fights doesn't handicap him in anyway. Robinson simply has a better resume.

 

Or?

This content is protected

 

This content is protected

 

We live in an overhyped era were the average are often proclaimed as great but in Pernell Whitaker we had a true great ..
I think calling him 'The' best of all time is stretching it a little bit because i dont think you can categorically say which individual fighter is 'The' best who stands alone. All you can do is talk about weight divisions and each era ..
For me there have only been 3 truly great fighters since Ray Leonard and they are, Whitaker, Jones and Mayweather. People may disagree and want to add Pacquiao but i dont know about that, 'Great' isnt a word to be used lightly in any walk of life ....

Toney, Hopkins, De La Hoya, Lewis, Chavez, Calzaghe, Holyfield and Tzsyu were all brilliant fighters with good records but for me Jones, Pernell and Mayweather are on a higher level to these guys ..

 

:shock:

Who is that?

(Only at ESB can you get pictures of busty tennis players in a boxing thread. )