Better resume: Chavez or Whitaker?

Whitaker.

 

Dunno. Either way, it doesn't make his resume any deeper or stronger than it is, and it isn't as strong as Whitaker's.

 

I love Pea, But his record is scattered with "What If's & should have's".
Chavez either beat the **** out of you, or he lost. (I like the closure)

Rather be knocked out than having to go the full distance & have some old dude decide.

 

Pretty much. Chavez was old school in that regard, which is why I don't pay much mind to the claims about him having a padded record. Sure he did, but it doesn't take away from the fact that he proved himself at the highest level. If a fighter made their entire careers off fighting bums and built up an immaculate record as a result, they probably wouldn't get much credit from me. If a fighter fought a lot of bums to stay in shape and keep active, while taking on a fair amount of credible challenges in the meantime, I have no problem with that at all.

 

I think it's a great idea and it would be nice to see fighters these days doing the same thing.

 

your one of the most credibles and objectives dudes here in ESB ... is a pleasure to read your toughts

 

There are also loads of people that feel Whitaker lost to JC Vasquez and Wilfredo Rivera......yet those that love pointing to Pea's hardlook on the scorecards, chose to ignore these fights.

......if anyone is going to argue that Whitaker was robbed against certain fighters, fine, but also bring out ridiculous decisions such as his first fight with Rivera, which is far and beyond more of a robbery than his fight with JC Chavez.

The Whitaker-Rivera decision was just ridiculous.

 

Who are these many people? Name more than one person on this website that feels he lost to Vasquez.

There are far more people that think Chavez lost to Laporte then there are people who think Whitaker lost to Vasquez.

Your scorecard for this ridiculous decision? I actually haven't seen anyone here produce a scorecard when saying Whitaker robbed Rivera. Quite frankly, it's a myth. It's the first fight in Whitaker's career he ARGUABLY lost, but it was no robbery. You can easily argue he won 7 rounds.

 

Chavez, it's a no brainer.

 

In answer to the thread question: on paper, Chavez. On the level, Whitaker.

 

What the hell are you doing in the general forum?

You belong in mythical land, the classic forum.


I'm just teasing Scientist, I actually think the general forum would benefit from posters such as yourself, discussing current events in boxing........


.....but damn, how do you do it? anytime anything in the negative is said of Whitaker, you smell it and are on it like a hawk!:shock:










Admit it Scientist, the truth will set you free.....Pernell Whitaker lost to Wilfredo Rivera!:yep

 

I've got to say, my interest in the game right now is tepid at best. I do however, like to poke my head in and if it's an interesting topic about fighters from the past i'll contribute where I can.

As you know Vlade, my Pernell Whitaker radar is better than Wilfred Benitez's radar for an incoming punch

 

I'll make a deal with ya, you admit Chavez lost to Whitaker and I'll admit Whitaker lost to Rivera

Here's my card for the fight btw. Let anyone that knows what they are talking about question the validity of that card:good

Pernell Whitaker vs. Wilfredo Rivera I: 115-115 Draw
Whitaker: 1,3,5,8 and 9.
Rivera: 6,7,10,11 and 12.
Rounds 2 and 4 even.

 

I cant change what my scorecard read Scientist. It is what it is. 6 rounds a piece was my honest to goodness score.
.....my only beef with people like yourself has been that the fight was so far from one sided.
It was competitive, I'm baffled as to how many people have been brainwashed into thinking otherwise.

You've heard me say it before....Whitaker had two big rounds in that fight, and if I had to chose a winner as a judge, one way or the other and no draws, I'd chose Whitaker based on those two rounds.
Thats as honest an admittance as you'll get from me!


Now who won Whitaker-Rivera?

 

exactly:good if you took out all the "bums" or whatever on chavez's record he'd still have a ton of very solid names and maybe half the fights he had. what's better: 50 wins against solid and good fights or 100 wins against solid, good and lesser tune up fighters? it doesn't matter really. taking out those lesser fighters would just mean he had the same number of fights as the mayweathers, jones, etc. of the world. those lesser fighters provided the training for him to keep his skills sharp when he took on dudes like meldrick taylor