is Pernel Whitaker Overrated?

This but I have a criteria called 'application' where I rate performance x opposition.

Therefore fighters I feel have been robbed get credit for their performance in the bout. I don't reverse the win (certainly don't consider a fight as close as Pea-Oscar a robbery they both get immense credit) but how could I not give Tyrone Everett credit for totally outshining Escelara? I have to count that as a loss for him? And how can I give Conteh credit for 'earning a draw' against Burnett? To take it back to the thread: how can I not give Pea immense credit for his showing against Chavez? If I gave them both equal kudos for the 'draw' I'd be wasting my own time.

 

So who was the best featherweight/super feather from 85-90?

Barry McGuigan?

 

Boudouani was a fine fighter. Not great, but a solid counter puncher with a decent dig, who just before his decline gave David Reid all sorts of problems getting off. Close fight that.

 

I'm speaking relative to weight class. Obviously Nelson isn't better than Hashim Rahman.

 

Absolutely rate the performance. A fighter's demonstrated ability should be key in rating him. In fact, I believe it should be the most important element.

Just saying, it gets sticky putting stuff in the W column when it isn't, in fact, a W.

 

Venice Bus Station was never no.1 flyweight because Ohba died. Borkorsor ducked his corpse.

 

I agree 100% with the last bit. My performance aspect is my way of getting around it

As for the bit I've bolded, resident sage lora is exactly the same. I think it's okay, as long as you are sharp enough to realise when you're being swept up in the aesethic quality of a fighters output. For yourself, that isn't a problem of course.

 

He'd also lose to Willie Ludick.

 

I understand that its hard not to buy flash.

When you've fought the thousands of rounds I have, understanding true quality is a bit easier.

Part I struggle with most is rating guys I've fought. Impossible to be objective in the same sense you guys are.

 

That's the great insight though isn't it? And why some fighters come up with some seemingly odd choices when pressed for an answer of 'hardest puncher faced' or 'best defensively' etc etc

Even scrutinising film with a shrewd and cultured eye cannot be compared in any way, shape or form to actually being one of the participants.

Out of interest who did you find the most difficult in your career? McGirt, Nelson, Chavez or Vasquez?

 

But then again Cokes isn't as great as John McDermott as Pele Reid would've knocked him out no problem. Look wot he deed to Vitali in da kickboxing match! Fat John iced him.

 

The only thing there's no speculation about is that Cokes got the better of a fairly average assortment of fighters during his reign (Rodriguez excluded).

Even if a fighter cleans out a division, that in and of itself isn't the be all and end all of a discussion when comparing them to someone that didn't or who didn't even hold a title.

THat's why no one rates Ricardo Lopez over a Charley Burley, other than Colonel Bob Sheridan.