The differences between the careers of Pernell Whitaker and Floyd Mayweather.

There are plenty of Mayweather fans who don't think he's "perfect in every way". No one thinks he has the best offense and he himself might even tell you that. He was a defensive fighter first and foremost and the fact he was never knocked down let alone knocked out in 20 years lends credibility to the idea he had the closest thing to perfect defense if nothing else.

Plenty of the guys he supposedly "ducked" had a lot to blame for fights not happening. See Shane "my tooth hurts" Mosley, Manny "scared of needles" Pacquiao, Margarito getting the feces beaten out of him by the previously mentioned boxers and thus killing any potential hype for a Floyd fight, etc. This has been done to death and it's a boring ass discussion.

Its called prize fighting. Taking advantage of marketing and matchmaking to boost your popularity and ticket sales is smart. Only an idiot would be opposed to it.

First sentence is true. Whitaker was robbed in many of his big fights and I will always bring that up to defend his record.

Second sentence is hyperbole nonsense. Mayweather had many enemies including Bob Arum and Oscar De La Hoya. He did not have nearly enough money to have the "entire sport" in his back pocket. And we know that this literally cannot be true if one of the judges scored his fight with Canelo a draw.

That is your opinion, not a fact.

Mayweather clearly doesn't have the best resume of all time and isn't the greatest of all time, and he lacks those key memorable "signature wins" like other ATG's, but he was by far one of the most consistent boxers and athletes of all time. He was never out of shape and took every opponent seriously. He never had a fight where he got badly battered or outclassed and needed a knockout or gift to win and I think that bothers people who prefer heroes that overcome seemingly hopeless challenges. He had solid fundamentals, accuracy, and timing from the start of his career to the end. He beat more champions and ranked opponents than anyone. The fact he never lost is simply icing on the cake. He truly has nothing left to prove and is undeniably the best fighter of the last 15 years and a guaranteed ATG, period.

 

Zzz zzz

You are basically just repeating the same boring talking points of guys like CJ that have been done to death thousands of times.

If you want to have a discussion comparing the actual resumes or skills of Floyd and Whitaker I'd be more than happy to discuss them.

This whining about Floyd didn't fight so and so/only fought in Vegas/etc crap is boring af. Find something else to talk about for once.

 

No CJ is an idiot and a loser who has been repeating the same boring talking points to trash Floyd's career since before I even joined the forum. Floyd lives rent free in his head. Him making a valid point about Floyd is the equivalent of a broken clock being right twice a day.

Whitaker was more well rounded than the 147 pound version of Floyd and had better offense. The older Floyd was like 75% defense and the older he got, the less he had in his arsenal. At one point all he had was stiff jabs to the head and body, a check hook, and right hand pull counter. He stopped fighting on the inside and preferred to simply clinch or turtle up if The opponent threw too much.

The younger pretty boy version of Floyd was much more aggressive and it's debatable who was more well rounded. That version of Floyd was an amazing combination puncher with painfully sharp blows, stinging counters, and a great finisher when he had his man hurt.

On the other hand, both versions of Floyd were better at making adjustments in the middle of a fight compared to Whitaker. Floyd's solid fundamentals and high ring IQ allowed him to regain control of a fight no matter how chaotic it seemed to be getting (like the first maidana fight that few people give him credit for). Whitaker on the other hand preferred being a little flashier and making you miss wildly or pulling off fancy head work and upper body movement.

 

I've always said it, Whitaker would have beaten Mayweather.

 

CJ does have a solid point. I agree, Whittaker was what mayweather wanted to be just never had the balls

 

Whitaker was better.
Floyd was greater.

 

and like i've already said today in another thread, there's been a serious spike in 'let's discredit floyd' posts since loma lost...again.

and what's wrong with fighting in vegas?
it's the mecca of boxing, it's where the real money is made from a fight weekend due to the casinos, and he's always fought on the biggest stage of all.

saying mayweather ducked winky honestly shows how misinformed you are.
floyd hit welter in 2006?
by that time winky was fighting at LMW and moved up to LHW after that.
or did you want winky to drop down to LW from LMW a few years earlier?

 

I suggest you pop to Boxrec and you shall see he fought outside of vegas too fool!

 

Who are the most important opponents Floyd should have had but didn't? Likewise for Whitaker?

I'm not talking about fights like Pac where it happened too late but those that never happened at all.

 

First, let me start off by saying Pernell ranks far higher than Floyd from an ATG standpoint. I think Pernell may very well be top 10/15. Floyd is definitely in the top 30 (and this goes by how his contemporaries rank him, which is the most important).

I'd like you to name 1 fighter that Floyd "ducked". Just one, and I'd like you to quantify your reasoning behind your answer. Again, I'm only asking for one. I saw earlier you mentioned Winky Wright which makes no sense. Floyd was still a JWW when Winky had already moved up to MW..............I pray that you have a better example than this one.

 

Whitaker did better against prime Oscar than Floyd did against an aging Oscar.

Forget the official scorecards: even Oscar knows the judges were in Bob Arum's pocket for that Whitaker "win".