Has Mayweather surpassed Whitaker?

It was a damn near shutout you ****ing idiot, it was clearer than the Chavez fight. atsch

 

Ramirez was a green 20 year old at the time. He wouldn't hit his straps for another coupe of years.

And Ramirez might not have a good RECORD against champions, but he beat Rosario twice and Arguello as well in my opinion. You'll probably say that's just my opinion, which is a convenient exit for someone that has never even seen the first Rosario or the Arguello bout.

Thanks for bringing your boxrec wisdom to the table :good

 

True, because he got ROBBED!

I consider what he actually did in the ring to judge him, not what goddamn paper says, like you do. I judge him for what he actually did, ya know? I didn't take it away from him if he was robbed of a decision.

 

ive seen them, who are you to tell me what fights i havent seen. You do know there are sites on the internet besides youtube, where you can dowload any fight from the 80s. Ever heard of worldboxingvideoarchive

 

I think he's edged him out.

 

What were your scorecards for the fights? Round by round. Prove that you've seen them.

 

:yikes

That fight wasn't even close. Whitaker was on his bike? Is this your way of saying you only score for aggressive fighters even when they are not landing and get countered continously? Whitaker pasted this guy all night long. Both times....

 

Understandable for someone who thinks he lost to Buddy McGirt.

 

At a push, and its a very generous push, 4 rounds for Ramirez.

 

You are making it far too subjective though. By not running off the actual resume you are leaving too much room for personal bias to be used. I can understand if you were taking into account actual performance in providing an analysis for a head 2 head comparison. But if judging solely on resume, its not fair to do so. Let me give some examples of how this could be used: Vitali WOULD have beaten Lewis, Holyfield would have beaten Lewis, Taylor should have beaten Chavez, Castillo should have beaten Mayweather ect ect... You could think of an absolute tonne of examples where fights could have gone either way due to judges or refs. And if you start debating the decision then the resume becomes subjective to each persons own personal bias. What you might think is a fair analysis is probably unfair to other people.... I can see where you are coming from, but I just don't agree with your methods.

 

**** the resumes, just look at what Whitaker was and Mayweather is able to do in a ring.

Each in their time and in their own way, was new school, quantum leap, Pentium ****ing VII of boxing...

OK, now that I've pacified the belligerants, where's my goddam Nobel Prize???

 

Whitaker's domination of Ramirez in the rematch. Astounding. To put on that type of clinic against a veteran with so much experience, a top lightweight for many years as well, was remarkable. Not just being that he shut Ramirez out, but the variety and quality in his arsenal. I'll never forget the first time I watched the fight, it had me laughing.

I doubt even Willie Pep put on a better clinic against a journeyman.

 

To the whitaker gang, an annoying habbit you guys seem to have is that you all make assumptions that other posters simply have not seen the fights you are talking about. Fair enough if you guys have seen them, but you should give people the benefit of the doubt IMO. Or at least ask first before assuming their ignorance. Anyway, for the record, if his resume stood with a win vs Oscar didn't have the loss to Ramirez and had a win vs Chavez then his resume would be above Mayweathers. But the fact is at the end of the day that it doesn't. How many of Oscar De La Hoyas matches could you argue? How would you judge his resume then? Do you realise that by arguing the verdict of fights you are going well beyond judging resume, and creating an arguement with a noticable hole?

 

Why should the judges' opinion be held to some sort of higher status than anyone else's opinion? Are they not biased too? Of course they are. That's why you should never rest on the judges' opinion unless it's the last resort. If you watch the fight and think a fighter won, then hold that view, irrespective of what the judges say.

 

As much as I hated Pernells boring style. . .at least the dude never once hesitated to get in the ring with the most dangerous fighters of his time.