How would Pernell Whitaker do in the late 40's-early 50's?

He would lose to all of them because fighters from the late 1800's up to 1940 were better than modern fighters. You know because people on this forum say so and they clearly know everything about boxing.

 

I'd love to see Burt's ideas on this as he saw most if not all the fighters you mentioned and considered Ike the best of them.

 

Clearly I was being sarcastic because of these so called boxing fans who post in the classic section act like just because you boxed in the late 1800's to early 1900's it makes you better than modern fighters when clearly that is the opposite of reality.

Pernell would be way to skilled for people in that era.

 

He'd go very well in any era.

 

Give each of those guys a handful of salt and they'd hardly get a grain on him if they all threw at once.

Pea is a head-to-head matchup nightmare for anybody at 135. Not saying he'd be undefeated if he ran that gauntlet, but he'd fare as well or better than anyone else. And in my book if he goes a mythical best-of-three vs. those guys he doesn't lose a series.

 

I tend to believe that the great ones would be great regardless of era

 

Agreed.

Even when there's no footage to see of a lot of these fighters and TONS of footage of new fighters they still get the raw end of the deal.

 

Whitaker would hold his own in any era. Great fighter.

 

It's called the "I-desperately-want-to-sound-like-an-expert/historian" syndrome. Very common around here!

 

he would be the champ at 135

 

If we are talking matching the '80s - '90s Whitaker against the elites from that era then I would agree with the consensus. However, if we are talking Whitaker coming up in that era then we are talking about a completely different Pernell Whitaker. His style would be completely different. He wouldn't be coming out of the Olympics with a gold medal (no wartime Olympics) walking into a multi-million dollar contract. Television was in its infancy so every fighter was fighting for small money due a piece of the gate. In other words, he would have to entertain. His style would have stunk out the joint so he would have to engage more and fight very often to secure a living rather than twice a year. Those fighters fought the best back then, very often and occasionally there was a loss or two here and there because of the level of competition. I don't think his style would have gelled with the live audience back then so he would have to make it more exciting. Great defense but not much of a punch and not the greatest of jaws spells probably not the most successful of careers. I always think of a conversation I had once with Georgie Benton when I asked him about he, Holly Mims and Joey Giardello being known as cuties. He said to me something that always stuck. He said, "Yeah, we were cuties. But back then, you still had to fight."

 

Might as well NEVER have a fantasy topic if this is the case.

The question, at least to me, is asking how would THE BEST Pea fare in the 40's & 50's. Simple, really...