Taller fighter with a reach advantage that matches up well with Pete. But, ultimately lacking what separates the greats from the rest. The ability to consistently win the big fights.
Yeah, let’s favor the guy who lost 58 times over Pernell Whitaker. Those were obviously all just dives, anyway.
I don't think its as simple as comparing career stats when comparing Whitaker to Cocoa Kid. It just doesn't come up as apples to apples. Whitaker fought 2, 3, 4 times a year and had ample time between bouts to relax and recharge due to the monies in existence at the time, whereas the Kid was fighting 13 -16 times a year to put food on the table. Whitaker could go away to a training camp whereas, Cocoa may have been hopping a train to his next fight. I'm sure Cocoa fought a lot bruised and beaten where Whitaker had excellent preparation. So this isn't a simple answer.
I think Cocoa Kid, with his Hearns-esque style, (supposed) speed and ranginess, is a bad match up for Whitaker. So that, to me, means it comes down to if he was good enough to do it. And I know how good Pete was.... I tend to think Pea wins a close decision. At times, he fights like he did vs Haugen and at others exchanges jabs with him at range. Lou Ambers had success fighting aggressively, and Williams and Burley had success at range. I think Pea could do better, and was better, than all of them.
You don’t even need to bring in the likes of Ambers or Burley to prove these points. That’s the thing. Jimmy Leto and Steve Halaiko both beat him multiple times a piece in Kid’s pre-Welterweight days (which took place over 50 fights). Using his vast experience of 249 fights is disingenuous for a couple of reasons. 1) Unless we’re talking about the retired Middleweight version, it’s not an applicable point. Whitaker was far more experienced and far more proven in this weight range. Kid fought 3 elites during this time. Ambers was young and inexperienced against world class opposition. He dominated Kid regardless. Ramey was primed and also handily won their fight. Kaplan was fighting the last fight of his career well above his Featherweight prime. Kid got the win there. 2) This is Cocoa Kid we’re talking about, not Archie Moore. He was getting beaten by lesser opponents at every stage of his career. If this wealth of experience had made for such an adaptable, all time great technician, where was this prime run that proved it? The reports of his fights don’t seem to suggest he was much more than an exceptional outboxer at any stage, although I’m open to being corrected there. The experience thing is a blanket argument that applies to most fighters of that era. It applied to Chavez and Ramirez against Whitaker, too. It’s applied to a million fighters that got outclassed by younger opponents who were simply better. The Archie Moores and Bernard Hopkins’ of the world would be a dime a dozen if it were the trump card Ecto made it out to be. At the end of the day, there’s levels to this ****. Whitaker was on an entirely different one.
Good stuff. Didn’t mean to paint you in an unfair light. You’ve always been a great poster. Just took issue with the experience argument in general, as I’ve seen it laid out in a similar way before. It’s an advantage for most all serious boxers, i.e. ones that are fighting for more than groceries. Only the highest level, though, when faced with an opponent like Whitaker, in my opinion. Cocoa Kid was the bane of Holman Williams, and while that’s a hell of an accomplishment in itself, it seems to have been a major outlier in both of their careers. Without it Williams would very likely hold the distinction of the best of the Murderer’s Row and Kid might well be the worst. As it is, their series alone greatly muddies the waters in that particular debate. On the Moore/Kid comparison, I think there’s a very notable difference even in the scenario you mentioned. Just as I think there’s a notable difference between Kid and Burley, Marshall, or Williams with their own series notwithstanding. Probably Booker, too. Being champion barely factors into it for me, particularly in that time period. It’s about who you faced and how you fared against them. Moore’s championship reign and, more importantly, his unparalleled longevity, is what separated him from the others I mentioned. They were all, in my opinion, on a higher level than Kid, Chase, Wade, and Lytell. Even then I do think Moore himself gets a bit overrated in the grand scheme. I’m not sold on him being a top 20 all time great myself. If not for the exceptional longevity that allowed him to outlast his arguably more talented contemporaries he wouldn’t be thought of in that class. Kind of a foolish argument, sure, but it’s a factor that separates him from the very elite, in my opinion. The guys who were the best of their eras.
