according to Eze, cotto is still a better fighter than margarito

Yea because McGirt is like Rivera, right? Chavez was smaller than Whitaker. What do you think is the difference between Chavez and Rivera? A good amount of size, right?

Obviously he's gonna look different against different opposition, but you'd be the first person on here to tell me a guy was past his prime at 32 years of age. Grasping desperately a straws from what I can see.

BTW, I made no mention of him being 35 and drug addled by the time he fought Trinidad. That is 3 years after the fact.

 

The difference between Chavez and Rivera is an infinite amount of skill, as well as a fair amount of size, nothing drastic. The difference between the Whitaker who fought Chavez and the Whitaker who fought Rivera is the drastic one.

Once again, take your own advice, watch the fights, watch Whitaker around that part of his career, and compare him to the prime version. They're nothing alike. Wilfredo Rivera was not the cause of Pea's awful performance, Whitaker himself was. Whitaker had fought awkward fighters like that before(Paez, Diaz, etc) and schooled them. Obviously something doesn't equate here. But if you're actually going to continue this debate by acting as if you know more about Whitaker than me, by all means be my guest. This should be fun.

Make a poll, or ask anyone outside of the General Forum if they felt Pea was in his prime, or at his particular best against Rivera. You're the only one who'd agree with that statement. Grasping desperately at straws from what I can see.

OK. You're acting as if it's totally out of the realm of possibility for a fighter to be past his prime at age 32 though, when he was completely shot and done at age 35. How about Henry Armstrong, one of the 3 greatest boxers of all time? His entire career was done at around the same age Whitaker fought Rivera. Tyson was past it by age 24. Who's clutching at straws now? What it comes down to is, you simply don't know enough about boxing to make any sort of ridiculous claim like that.

 

I'm not gonna get into a long drawn out posting debate about it, because it is common sense and you are just attempting to win an E-argument with this stupidity. Whitaker was not past his prime at 32. And to say he was completely shot at 35 is to just downplay Trinidad's performance to save face in your argument.

Different fights, different performances. This is common sense. I hope you get that someday.

 

Wait, so the Whitaker who'd been out of action for two years, had been doing heavy drugs during that span, and was fresh out of rehab that showed no semblance of his former self was not shot?

What's sad and maddening at the same time is that you actually believe this and think I'm in the wrong here. Oh well, what can I expect from a Lounge Rat with such a limited knowledge of boxing?

 

He was past his prime at 35, obviously. But to say he was completely shot is to give no respect to Trinidad.

But you are just trying to distort the debate here. It's obvious. Just admit that Whitaker was not past his prime at 32 (a ridiculous statement if I ever seen one).

 

Why is it ridiculous? Henry Armstrong, one of the 3 greatest fighters of all time was shot at age 32. Tyson was past it by age 24 and certainly shot by age 32. Watch them fight, age is meaningless, it's that simple. How elementary do I have to get with you?

I'm pretty sure you understand this but simply aren't willing to admit defeat in this debate. You're in the wrong here.

 

Henry Armstrong lived in a time where fights were much harder and so was life. I would believe his prime was over by 32.

I would also believe Tyson's prime was over by 32 because he spent 4 years in prison where he could not stay sharp.

I am not about to believe that Whitaker, who had 3 fights in 2005, all dominant performances, was suddenly past his prime a mere 5 months later against Rivera.

Sorry, you aren't selling me that nonsense.

 

In terms of skills, Cotto is the better fighter. If it wasn't for Margarito's heart and chin, it would have been a landslide victory for Cotto.

 

So what of the other fighters around that era like Archie Moore who fought until the age of 46? Armstrong's prime was short even for his era.

he was past his prime by the time he fought Douglas for reasons aside from physical ability.

I was unaware that he fought in 2005 even once. I'll assume you meant 1995. He fought Vasquez in '95, which was his only stern test, and after coming back down from 154 it was clear he wasn't the same. You're honestly taking his performances against nobodies like Jake the Snake and Gary Jacobs as any indication that he still had it?

That's fine, I'm about done arguing with a brick wall anyway. You're the only one hard-headed enough to think the way you do, so believe what you will.

 

You know what? You are a snide little ****. Of course I meant 1995. But if you are gonna play on sophmore antics to try and get under my skin or get me to agree with you forget it. I'd rather be the brick wall than the imp, any day of the week.