You could, though I'm comfortable just leaving it at him being the better fighter overall. Floyd's obviously far more strict to technique and based on fundamentals, less of a risk taker. His athleticism and reflexes allowed him to work more flexibly within his style and give him added dimensions most don't have the benefit of. Pernell was something much more undefined, unorthodox and innovative and was tried against better opposition; I think his reflexes, radar and ability to discombulate an opponent's timing were all better even if he got hit more, but that also goes back to his willingness to assume more risks (in the ring fighting, I mean).
I think Mayweather vs Whitaker is a very hard fight to call. Floyd has a brilliant boxing brain and it would be the type of fight where the decision is argued about for years. An absorbing back and forth game of fistic chess.
I dunno man, boxing has evolved a lot since Whitaker's 'day'. Someone like Rios probably beats the brakes off him. Prime Roy wouldn't be that effective either, fighters are more athletic now.
Would have schooled the sh*t out of Juan Manuel Marquez thrice in the same fight. That's just how good he was.
This is exactly the way i saw it! the guy was a **** artist, the ring was his canvas. You fought him in the ring you entered his world, one could only imagine how great he would have been if wasnt coked out at the end of his career. I have him around the top ten ATG
Great fighter. One of the biggest talents ever. Had his own style. The only problem is his resume. However, many (including me) think he actually defeated JCC.
He didn't win any of his biggest fights. Very good in two weight divisions, 135 & 147. But not one of the 35 greatest pound for pound fighters of all time.
Well, many think (me included) that he was undefeated before the Tito's fight. Depending of course on how you scored his fights against Oscar De La Hoya and Wilfredo Rivera I.