Boxers most consider great, that you don't

I agree.

 

Go right ahead.

Why was he "great?"

 

Well, for two years. Shane Mosley was #1 for two years, too. Roman Gonzalez was #1, too. Doesn't really mean much long term.

 

I agree as well

 

How about 6 world titles in 4 weight divisions. Never really lost until he was 35

 

It does mean a lot long term...as if being #1 in the world is a small accomplishment...if you are #1 pfp you are what most would call a " great fighter" .thats like saying an MVP trophy doesnt mean much

 

See Derrick Rose. (LOL)

 

Pound for Pound has always been a "fantasy" pick. All it means is the people who work for boxing pubs at the time think you are awesome. It's a sales gimmick for promoters and networks. Nothing more. Most pound for pound boxers can't beat the champ 10 or 15 pounds heavier than they are.

It's meaningless.

 

Well what exactly do you need to see on Whitaker's resume....He fought the best of his day and beat most of them. I mean you can't just say he wasn't great because you don't like him..lol

 

He lost at age 23 in his first title shot. And guys like Jorge Arce and Adrien Broner have won titles in four divisions.

And with all those belts Whitaker won, there wasn't a Hall of Famer in the bunch.

Greg Haugen. Rafael Pineda. Buddy McGirt. Jose Luis Ramirez. Juan Nazario. Julio Cesar Vasquez.

Mark Breland knocked out Pineda in a title fight before Whitaker decisioned him. Medrick Taylor knocked out McGirt in a title fight before Whitaker decisioned him. Why did Whitaker winning a boring decision over them make him GREAT?

I'm not saying Whitaker was a bad fighter. I'm just saying he wasn't great.

He didn't do anything to prove he was, honestly.

 

He outpointed Azumah Nelson. That's the best guy he beat.

 

So you think he really lost to Ramirez? And you think the Chavez fight was a draw ? Do you think Delahoya beat him?

 

Wow.

 

Walcott gave a good performance first time round but he was still clearly past his beat likewise with Charles neither was in their prime. And while Moore aged better then maybe any boxer that's still not enough to justify be ranked far above Frazier, Holyfield and Foreman. Added to that Charles and Moore were better as light heavys as well.

Just compare Louis performance against Savold and co to his prime he is so much worse not even comparable. Rocky fans always use this as a quality win when its not. If we say Louis best performance was Schmeling 2 in 38 then this is 13 years before he fights Rocky. That is a lifetime in the fight game. Louis was fighting the best in the division by 1935 that's 16 years prior, nobody could remain a top talent for that time frame. Just compare Ali at his best say against Cleveland Williams in 66 and then 12 years later against Spinks totally different fighter and this is a shorter time frame then above with Louis. The fact that Louis is mostly used as Rocky 4th best opponent shows you how weak his resume is.

Bringing up the first fight with LaStarza only hurts Rocky as he narrowly won that against a guy who would be demolished by any all the great heavyweights. The fact is Maricano is all about the 0 take that away and his legacy drastically changes as he doesn't have the resume to fall on like pretty much all other true all time great heavyweights.