Well an opinion cant be wrong, ive seen his fights from 89-1997. Its just that im criticizing a fighter that ESB loves, so i knew i would be facing a tough crowd. If I chose to criticise mayweather, many people would have hopped on to the anti-mayweather train.
Listen, when I mean will whitaker get tested? That means is he fighting someone that I would tune in to see if he realistically beats pernell. This has happened 3 times in his career before 1997. Mcgirt tested him, then chavez, then vasquez. When Pryor fought Argeullo, it was seen as a test. Would u favour glass jawed roger over arguello? I think pernell beats argeullo rather easily, but surely hes a better test than roger.
Thats exactly what sweet scientist is, a floyd mayweather hater and an agenda driven sweet pea maniac. I like sweet pea by the way, i just chose to play devil's advocate and criticise his resume. I realize that don king prevented whitaker from fighting alot of guys. But whitaker could have realistically fought camacho, his buddies taylor and breland, and ike quartey anytime between 1994-1996. Im not blaming him for not fighting those guys its not his fault, but it would make his resume look alot better and would validate him as an all-time head to head fighter. I dont think hes even worth mentioning compared to sugar ray robinson in terms of head to head ability because robinson's resume is 10x better.
The notion is that pernell in his prime was uber dominant, but outside of chavez-mcgirt-vasquez, he never beat anyone that was given a chance against him, and mcgirt was the only boxer out of the 3. The De La Hoya fight showed that de la hoya's reach along with his lateral movement and speed were issues, just watch the fight again, even a prime whitaker will struggle if he faces a bxer with speed and reach. Whitaker usually fought pressure fighters.
Im saying that beating chavez, mcgirt and vasquez hardly qualifies as evidence that whitaker might be the greatest head to head fighter of all times, a label he has recieved many times and twice in this thread alone. Shane Mosley could realistically go 3-0 against those guys.
Actually cotto was quite a bit more versatile and talented than alot of guys whitaker has beat, same with marquez, marquez can actually box. I forgot though, marquez win means nothing, but beating nelson is a legacy fight.
:rofl Amazing! And again, who is saying Pea is the greatest H2H of all time? That goes to Saensak Muangsurin of course. In 15 round wars he never sat down! Southpaw Thai ten stone Foreman!
Okay, yes, the argument is pretty stupid, but can I just say, besides agreeing with you, that I love this damn movie?
It drags in places but when it's funny it killed me off. "When we get back I'm gonna' teach ya' how to juggle"
don't argue with trolls.. they just take you down to their level and beat you with experience. Or is it stupidity.. I give up.
If you had a look at their fight, you'd see that Roger Mayweather was actually bigger than Whitaker. There's a reason he went up to 140 and fought well but yeah... Freddie Pendleton, although no great, was another stylistical hurdle in that he was a quick, rangy banger. Whitaker boxed him to pieces anyway... And the reason Pryor isn't rated as well as Whitaker is because he didn't have his longevity and Whitaker has more depth to his resume. Right only 2 fighters and no contenders. Good point. Possibly, but he also would have also whipped a lot more greats though, because as his career actually showed, he wasn't out of his depth when he fought great fighters, and often made a mockery of them. If Napoles was more tested, it was marginally so imo. Ortiz yes, he did face a lot of greats, but many you would **** upon for not being natural lightweights (laguna, who beat him, sugar ramos, who was doing well in his first fight before the cut ended it, flash elorde) and of the lightweights he lost to Loi and was fortunate to get the cut stoppage against what would have been a stylistic hurdle in Kenny Lane. Ortiz is a great though and for me, if you did want to put him above Whitaker I think it's defenceable. I wouldn't do it myself, but you could make a case.
Well, we saw what Nelson looked like at 135. To me he didn't look diminished in strength, speed or power. He wouldn't have the same strength advantage as he had at the lower weights, and reach would be a problem against the much rangier guys, but against guys that wouldn't try to muscle him or outreach him, i.e. smaller boxer types, there's no reason to think he couldn't do well against them. I don't envisage many having the skill to outbox him the way Whitaker did. Same deal with Chavez re welterweight.