Depends on what the controversy was tho.... in this case the controversy was that the only 2 people on earth that didnt have Whitaker winning was the 2 judges that scored it even. Nobody scored it for Chavez.
a lot of people mention his resume as not the best, very good, but lacking the credentials that would list him higher in an all time list. What are the reason for this?? did people duck him? nobody to fight him? bad management?? i ask out of interest, i want to know because his skill set was incredible!
He beat anyone around that was worth a ****. Jose Luis Ramirez Greg Haugen Freddie Pendleton Azumah Nelson Juan Nazario Jorge Paez Rafael Pineda Buddy McGirt Julio Cesar Chavez and Julio Cesar Vazquez for a 154 title just for shits and giggles (dude who whooped Winky Wright) And he deserved a close decision over DLH.
true, and to be honest, to be debatin about if a fighter is within the top 10 or top 15 is petty, his accomplishments arent being dissed by any means!!
Marquez Morales x2 Barrera x2 Cotto Hatton De La Hoya Clottey Diaz Solis Ledwaba Sasakul There is no denying that Pacquiao's resume is miles ahead of Whitaker. He's won titles in like a billion divisions.
If we're including the likes of Diaz and Solis, here's Whitaker's by comparison: Chavez (universally agreed upon robbery) Nelson McGirt X2 Vasquez Mayweather Haugen Ramirez X2 (the first being another universally agreed upon robbery) Pendleton Hurtado Pineda Brazier Paez Nazario Rivera X2 (the first being controversial, admittedly) Layne Lomeli And that's not even including the decision against De La Hoya, which in my mind (along with the majority of others) should've gone to Whitaker. Considering I had Pacquiao going winless in his bouts with Marquez (the best fighter he ever faced), I agree with you that their resumes aren't close, just not in the way you're thinking.:good