Pernell "Sweet Pea" Whitaker was the fighter of the 90's

The Mosley bout was not in the 90s...

And being pound for pound the best of the 90s, is not the same as being fighter of the decade.

 

The Quartey was a let down, but the sixth and twelve were fun, which did kind of save it from beuing a total write off, if I remember correctly.

I thought Trinidad was going to win the de la Hoya fight, but I had Oscar edging it at the end, so I was impressed by that performance.

Whitaker was not fighter he once was, going into the de la Hoya fight. But he was still mighty cute, and knew how to survive and make his opponent look bad.

Jones and Whitaker were at their best, more gifted and talented than de la Hoya.

But Whitaker had peaked in the decade in 1990, and by 1995 was clearly on the downside of his career.

Jones should of dominated the decade, but wasted what should of been a career to threaten Robinson as the best ever, by avoiding any dangerous opposition post Toney in the decade.

Jones IMO would of beat Benn, Eubank, Collins, Michalczewski and Hopkins (in a rematch), but he choose to waste his prime beating an ancient Pazienza and Tony Thornton.

On top of this, losing his cool in his only competitive fight of the time period (the first Griffin fight).

Thus, I cannot call Jones the fighter of the 90s either.

 

No, the fighter of the decade is not always the best, but the one who achieved the most in the decade.

For example: Riddick Bowe had more talent in his little finger, than Holyfield had period, and Bowe bested Holyfield over the course of three fights in the 90s, but Evander still outshone Big Daddy in the decade.

 

atsch

 

You disagree? An exaggeration to make a point granted, but Bowe had everything but desire; Holyfield had to work his balls off to make his career.

 

Yes I agree, Jones and Whitaker had the edge in ability, but de la Hoya beat everyone that mattered in his divisions pre 1999, and finally only lost a debatable decision to another candidate in Trinidad. Thus de la Hoya was the fighter of the decade, the best fighter the sport had to offer, as his resume and consistency outshone his rivals, the edge being the pressure on him to succeed.

 

Compared to Bowe, he lacked talent, you just have to watch his life death brawls with Stewart (fight one) and Dokes to see that. And what he was doing against Czyz, I will never know.

Bowe came back recently (a year ago) and fought in Germany, and although completely shot, he still looked more relaxed and flowed more than Holyfield did even in his prime. The problem Bowe had was his brain and timing was still there, but his physical tools have been ravaged by his lifestyle

 

:huh

I am not disagreeing with you! Holyfield was truly brilliant, particularly as he, as well giving up weight to many an opponent, was also not as talented, but edged it though dedication and ring smarts...

 

Jones for me, Whitaker a close second, Delahoya nowhere near and not 3rd either

 

Whitaker`s absolute peak & some of his greatest performances came in the 80s tho, that might be enough to swing the 90s in Jones favour.

Id give Pea the edge over Jones if you compare their whole careers from start to finish but I think Roy takes it from 90-99.

:good

 

Yeah, and at 47 and barely discernible when he talks, Holyfield arguably beat a 7'+ title holder. A medicore one yes, but a fairly effective one nonetheless.

I really don't know what the Hell you're smoking pal but I'll take it. Holyfields accuracy, combinations, speed, chin and powers of recovery are sublime. He and Bowe are completely different fighters. Bowe may have got the better of their series but Holyfield is the far greater fighter.