If Whitaker is #10 All-Time by The Ring, and Pac is NOT Top 10 material...

Discussion in 'World Boxing Forum' started by Sweet Pea Pacquiao, Nov 17, 2009.


Page 6 of 7
  1. sweet_scientist

    sweet_scientist Boxing Junkie Full Member

    13,744
    88
    Nov 8, 2004
    Show me reference to one publication that had Whitaker no.1 p4p at the time.

    Drained or not? As if it's up for debate. What's next? Old or not? Past prime or not? LOL, DLH was a shell. Pac moved up weight divisions which is what makes it a good win, but it's not a massive win. DLH was finished.

    I've already made it. Whitaker was more dominant and has a better resume. :good
     
    sweet_scientist, Nov 19, 2009
    sweet_scientist, Nov 19, 2009
    #76
  2. Sweet Pea Pacquiao

    Sweet Pea Pacquiao Boxing Addict Full Member

    3,294
    0
    Aug 25, 2004
    That's nice.

    De La Hoya W12 Whitaker
    Pacquiao W12 Marquez
     
    Sweet Pea Pacquiao, Nov 19, 2009
    Sweet Pea Pacquiao, Nov 19, 2009
    #77
  3. sweet_scientist

    sweet_scientist Boxing Junkie Full Member

    13,744
    88
    Nov 8, 2004
    You keep looking at those records. I'll keep reading what the people in the know said about the fights :good
     
    sweet_scientist, Nov 19, 2009
    sweet_scientist, Nov 19, 2009
    #78
  4. Sweet Pea Pacquiao

    Sweet Pea Pacquiao Boxing Addict Full Member

    3,294
    0
    Aug 25, 2004

    You can't give Whitaker credit for a LOSS to DLH LOL.

    The only guys in the Top 10 P4P when Whitaker fought them were DLH (LOSS), Chavez (DRAW), Nelson (moving up in weight), and McGirt I (prime guy at his weight). That's a 2-1-1 record. Look it up if you read Ring Magazine or followed the P4P rankings since 1990.

    Yeah, you sure showed me. :roll:
     
    Sweet Pea Pacquiao, Nov 19, 2009
    Sweet Pea Pacquiao, Nov 19, 2009
    #79
  5. Sweet Pea Pacquiao

    Sweet Pea Pacquiao Boxing Addict Full Member

    3,294
    0
    Aug 25, 2004
    Sure, I thought De La Hoya lost 7-5 to Whitaker. I thought he beat Chavez 9-3.

    I also thought Pacquiao won both fights over Marquez. And those in the know, whoever they are, can't get an eraser to negate what's in the record books. What I think and you think and Bert Sugar or Nigel Collins thinks are OPINIONS.

    Those in the know...What kind of facetious empty argument is that? I can find just as many scribes or experts who thought DLH beat Whitaker for being too negative. I can also find just as many scribes or experts who thought Pacquiao beat Marquez in the first fight...including one of the actual JUDGES, BURT CLEMENTS, who ADMITTED and was QUOTED that he made a mistake in the first round scoring...which would and SHOULD have been corrected like they did in Barrera-Juarez and Castillo-Johnston...but wasn't when Pacquiao was fighting for Murad Muhammad and Marquez was the Arum Top Rank house fighter. Come on now.

    That's not an argument based on FACTS sweet scientist. And that's where you lost.

    This is a historical debate about FACTS. Get that straight.
     
    Sweet Pea Pacquiao, Nov 19, 2009
    Sweet Pea Pacquiao, Nov 19, 2009
    #80
  6. sweet_scientist

    sweet_scientist Boxing Junkie Full Member

    13,744
    88
    Nov 8, 2004
    But we can give credit to Julio Cesar Chavez for drawing with Whitaker and Evander Holyfield for drawing with Lennox Lewis right?

    Official records mean jack ****.

    According to Ring Magazine Whitaker went 4-0 there :good

    But you are yet to show me where Whitaker was #1 p4p when DLH fought him. I'll wait for your proof.
     
    sweet_scientist, Nov 19, 2009
    sweet_scientist, Nov 19, 2009
    #81
  7. Sweet Pea Pacquiao

    Sweet Pea Pacquiao Boxing Addict Full Member

    3,294
    0
    Aug 25, 2004
    Show me where DLH was #1 P4P when he fought Whitaker??? He hadn't even won a linear belt and yet you say HE was #1 P4P?

    As far as where they stood, Boxing Illustrated had RJJ and Whitaker waffling between #1 P4P. KO and Ring had RJJ #1 with DLH and Whitaker alternating between #2 and #3 for 1997 after Whitaker had been #1 from 93-mid 96. I don't have a scanner but I wish I did.
     
    Sweet Pea Pacquiao, Nov 19, 2009
    Sweet Pea Pacquiao, Nov 19, 2009
    #82
  8. sweet_scientist

    sweet_scientist Boxing Junkie Full Member

    13,744
    88
    Nov 8, 2004
    In judging fighters, firstly I go off what I think is the case from what I see. Secondly I take account of what the consensus amongst boxing's intelligentsia (scribes and intelligent fight fans) think is the case, and lastly and I take account of fighters' records.

    Looking at a fighters official record as an argument for their greatness or achievements or whatever is at best a weak argument for the point you're trying to make. When there is a blatant error in officiating, the record is worthless.
     
    sweet_scientist, Nov 19, 2009
    sweet_scientist, Nov 19, 2009
    #83
  9. Sweet Pea Pacquiao

    Sweet Pea Pacquiao Boxing Addict Full Member

    3,294
    0
    Aug 25, 2004
    "Official records mean jack ****" -sweet scientist

    I can't even begin to tell you how ridiculous that statement is. JACK ****??? If they meant jack **** then Emanuel Augustus would have had 5 title shots by now.

    The decisions may be potentially corrupt, e.g., Whitaker-Chavez, but official records are what decide who gets to hold the belts and linear titles.

    Come on now.
     
    Sweet Pea Pacquiao, Nov 19, 2009
    Sweet Pea Pacquiao, Nov 19, 2009
    #84
  10. Sweet Pea Pacquiao

    Sweet Pea Pacquiao Boxing Addict Full Member

    3,294
    0
    Aug 25, 2004
    So you're saying DLH beating Whitaker by 2 pts was "intelligensia's" right to wrong? Blatant error? You're fooling yourself.

    Too bad intelligensia can't take that WBC title away from De La Hoya and award it to Whitaker LOL
     
    Sweet Pea Pacquiao, Nov 19, 2009
    Sweet Pea Pacquiao, Nov 19, 2009
    #85
  11. sweet_scientist

    sweet_scientist Boxing Junkie Full Member

    13,744
    88
    Nov 8, 2004
    http://www.boxrec.com/media/index.php/The_Ring_Magazine's_Annual_Ratings:_Pound_For_Pound--1990s

    That's at the end of 1996. To recap, in 1997 Whitaker survived by the skin of his teeth against Diosbelys Hurtado, DLH utterly dominated Miguel Angel Gonzales and Roy Jones was DQ'ed for hitting Montell Griffin whilst he was on the deck.

    At the time of the DLH-Whitaker fight, DLH was first, Roy was second and Pernell was third.

    There's no scanner that can save you from your bull****.
     
    sweet_scientist, Nov 19, 2009
    sweet_scientist, Nov 19, 2009
    #86
  12. Sweet Pea Pacquiao

    Sweet Pea Pacquiao Boxing Addict Full Member

    3,294
    0
    Aug 25, 2004
    DLH was first? Where's your proof? haha again you are living off your opinion. I choose to live off of FACT.
     
    Sweet Pea Pacquiao, Nov 19, 2009
    Sweet Pea Pacquiao, Nov 19, 2009
    #87
  13. Sweet Pea Pacquiao

    Sweet Pea Pacquiao Boxing Addict Full Member

    3,294
    0
    Aug 25, 2004
    DLH didn't take over #1 until AFTER beating Whitaker.

    So what was that about official records again?

    You can't say they mean jack ****, and then point to DLH being #1 P4P off an OFFICIAL DECISION you claim was bull****!!!

    Do you like to eat your words with peanut butter or jelly?
     
    Sweet Pea Pacquiao, Nov 19, 2009
    Sweet Pea Pacquiao, Nov 19, 2009
    #88
  14. sweet_scientist

    sweet_scientist Boxing Junkie Full Member

    13,744
    88
    Nov 8, 2004
    Nearly every intelligent fight expert agrees DLH-Whitaker was a fight that could have gone either way. Maybe there was a little bit more of a consensus that Whitaker won, but no one called it a robbery. The judges were however very one sided in their scoring. And I am in wholehearted agreement with that thinking. I had Whitaker winning by a point btw.

    There was a clear majority in favour of Marquez against Pac in the rematch. I had it a draw. As far as I'm concerned, the fight was even.

    As far as the consensus goes, more people thought that Pea beat DLH than they thought Pac beat Marquez in the rematch. I'd take that into account beofre I would the official decisions in the fights.
     
    sweet_scientist, Nov 19, 2009
    sweet_scientist, Nov 19, 2009
    #89
  15. sweet_scientist

    sweet_scientist Boxing Junkie Full Member

    13,744
    88
    Nov 8, 2004
    Well they are clearly important in that sense, but not when it comes to ranking fighters. I'm hardly going to put up an argument such as "but Pac got to keep the belt therefore he must get credit for the win". It's utterly irrelevant. And that's what you in effect are doing.
     
    sweet_scientist, Nov 19, 2009
    sweet_scientist, Nov 19, 2009
    #90
Page 6 of 7