Did Robberies Cost Pernell Whitaker a Place in the GOAT Conversation?

He had two controversial wins over Wilfredo Rivera too. DLH fight wasnt a robbery it was a close fight that could have gone either way a win would probably move him some spots in an all time list .The Chavez fight was indeed a robbery but most ppl who make lists count it as a Pernell win. But all in all hes in the conversation for best lightweight ever and one of the best defensive fighters and most skilled fighters ever but i dont think he would be in the GOAT conversation even if his controversial losses /draws all went his way. Still one of my favorite fighters ever and at worst a top 25 all time .

 

Great fighter poor resume when compared to the very best.

 

Though personally I scored the Chavez-Whitaker fighta a draw and had DLH comfortably winning vs Whitaker, the ulitmate problem in rating Whitaker is his level of opposition.

The best fighters of the Whitaker era around his weight class were Chavez, Taylor, and Camacho, as we know Whitaker never faced either Taylor or Camacho and that effects him legacy wise imo.
Outside of the that group of fighters the the best Whitaker faced came when he was no longer prime, vs DLH and Trinidad. Imo losing to both and losing badly to Trinidad.

Whitaker is ranked properly imo. To defensively safety first and not having faced the best of his era prevent him from being ranked higher.

 

He may well have had more defensive talent than just about anyone else but to put him in the conversation for being among the greatest of all time, you have to take a bit of a leap of faith.

Rewriting history by virtually granting him a shutout vs Chavez and overruling the judges, giving him the de la Hoya fight, moves him up a bit, but they are both contentious calls.

I haven't rewatched the Oscar fight but, from memory, I don't think it could be called a robbery. Could have gone either way. And I certainly don't recall Chavez being dominated or, rather, ineffective to the point where he only won a round. I haven't seen the Ramirez fight but struggle to see how he didn't get the nod when posting, as you claim, a shutout performance. Are you sure he was that dominant?

Then there are the second tier fights that you list. Nelson was a former featherweight and at least 32. Paez was a former unexceptional featherweight. McGirt had an injury to his left arm and he only narrowly lost. Haugen? Solid but, again, his name on your resume shouldn't be part of the foundation for claiming greatest ever status.

I don't know that much about Pernell. I was never drawn to either his style nor his personality enough to pay him that much attention. I'll watch this thread and learn a bit more but the above are my observations to the points you make. As you can see, I'm not as big a fan as you are at this stage.

 

I had Whitaker by one round against Julio. I thought the decision was unfortunate but not a robbery. Whitaker won his rounds more emphatically but not 10-8 emphatic, and when I added them up it wasn't as far a gap as I thought it would be. I thought DLH won comfortably. And I thought Vazquez won.

I still think he's an ATG, tho.

 

Again even if I disagree with the boxing officials decisions on some bouts I always respect their verdicts, I do not carry a license to officiate boxing matches, just enjoy watching them. That even goes for my favorite fighters, I believe in good sportsmanship win or lose, I was a athlete in High School, we were taught good sportsmanship.

 

He generally gets credit for beating Chavez and Ramirez. Oscar was no robbery and Rivera is overlooked. His resume isn’t that deep compared to other greats and he burned out at a pretty young age. The answer is “no” for me.

 

He wasn't robbed vs Ramirez.

Against DelaHoya You can make a good case that SweetPea deserved a draw. Not because Whitaker fought that well. Pea fought a negative fight. His lone goal was to frustrate Oscar which he did. Problem was Pernell wasn't scoring many punches himself. Oscar won rounds on ineffective aggression.

I had that one a draw because neither man deserved to win. Pea should have kept his title.

 

Whitaker won both of the Ramirez's fights. Everyone but the judges saw it that way. The Chavez fight was close but I would give the nod to Whitaker, though Chavez was the aggressor, it wasn't effective aggression.
Deloyhoya could've gone either way. I have no problem with Oscar being the winner. But it was a eye opener to Oscar's limitations against elite competition, even against a past prime above his best fighting weight fighter like Whitaker. Delohoya should've been more dominant in that fight. I was expecting it to be more like Whitaker's fight with Trinidad. Trinidad Totally dominated that fight. There's no doubt who the winner was.

 

He's a great fighter. Was robbed a couple of times. I've got him in a top 10 at lightweight.

 

Yep, agree that #48 is too low. But 12-0 v Ramirez? I agree Whitaker won but not every round. Not an easy fight to score. I think an earlier win over Trinidad might have improved his standing but how much earlier? ‘95, ‘96?
Trinidad built his rep over welter during his entire reign so it’s arguable whether beating Trinidad earlier makes Whitaker’s legacy that much better. But had Whitaker beaten him in 99 then I think that would have added to his legacy more significantly but he didn’t and while he had an argument over DLH in ‘97, I had Oscar winning.

With those two scalps, he might well be a default top 20 all-time and an argument a strong argument as a top 10 welter. Which would put him in very, very special company. As it is, he’s special enough. And he’d always have someone’s ear over the Chavez and DLH fights, so plenty discount these blemishes already when evaluating his career.

 

Ramirez and Chavez were high way robberies imo. The DLH fight was very close and no robbery. I had it for Oscar by a point.

But even giving all three to Pea doesn't make him the GOAT.