Mayweather - What makes him great

Based on what? When did Whitaker ever show anything less than superb mentality, poise, or analytical ability (outside of certain later career fights)? He was extremely adaptable because he was so well rounded.

 

Also, while the two were technically very different, I wouldn't venture to say that Floyd was better in that regard, either. Maybe more mechanical, but that doesn't make him better. Whitaker's well-roundedness had to do with superb technical mastery brought up under the tutelage of one of the best strategic minds in history (the man in my avatar). The fact that he chose to do unorthodox things had more to do with his tremendous ego than any technical failing.

 

Let's talk a prime Whitaker here. We're talking boxing acumen, not out of ring decisions brought about by his ego and attitude.

 

When Whitaker was on his A game, his ability to apply that knowledge was about as good as anyone I've ever seen. His ego, while at times got the better of him, also allowed him to take more necessary risks than Floyd usually does, and made for a more efficient all around fighter in my view.

I much preferred the Whitaker who showed up all business (for the most part) than the version who looked to clown his opponents. He'd usually do at least some clowning, but performances like the Nelson, Haugen, and Chavez fights demonstrate that he had more than enough mental clarity to know when and when not to.

 

Thanks for asking. Pernell is a better combination puncher on offense. Mayweather has fine offense (and is better at) in terms of picking precise power-punches one at a time. Whittaker has a better and more versatile jab, and is a better combination puncher inside to head and body. Mayweather is great inside in regard to countering and defesnively, Whittaker is also, but Mayweather is better. Whittaker is better at bossing a man inside with the afforementioned combination hitting. Mayweather has better balance, Whittkae has more effective footwork, even though it is technically lesser.

Like i say, there are pros and cons for both men. What Mayweather does, he does better than Whittaker technically, even to the extent that i would call him better than Whittaker (though i accept others disagreeing), but Whittaker has an extra dimension.

I agree with you it's hard to say who is better though. And to be honest i reckon Mayweather's strength and power is underrated. His strength is sublime imo, even in the past when he's been backed up it seemed more of a tactic, he doesn;t get backed up whenever he makes a point of standing his ground.

By the way, sorry if i came across as a bit of a *****, it's all meant in health debate.

 

Well yeah, it is technique on Pernell's part, not so much on Jones'. I wouldn't bracket them together in a technical sense. Jones really was a force of nature in that he's not technical but was throwing power flurries, this really was a superman thing, as they nicknamed him. There's a huge difference between flurries and combinations as you probably know.

Whittaker's combination punching on offense and inside was technically sound to say the least. It's not really the same as Jones at all.

 

Same here on Whittaker-Floyd, i do reckon the jab of Whittaker would be a factor myself, but that debate could go on forever.

I respectfully disagree on Jones' combos being technically sound though. I've never seen many fighter throw flurries with such power before i think, but that's what i calss the majority of his stuff as, rapid fire flurries that carried ridiculous weight behind them. When i say combination i'm thinking more of Whittaker or Jose Napoles, it's all technically sound and it just looks a world of difference to Jones' mathod of doing it imo. I don't really factor raw power into a measure of technical proficiency. Jones was bombing guys out with crazy kinds of shots that were thrown from strange angles, whereas Whittaker was working inside and outside to body and head with what i've always seen as sublime technique.

Anyway, seems like we've both put our arguments forth,

 

Yeah Jones will forever spark debates because of how his career unfolded. Yeah like i say, at what Floyd does, he does such things technically fantastic, and to a tee. It was just the issue of the versatility i was getting at. I can see you asn't really getting at that initially, think we got off an a bit of a tangent there, haha.