Pernell Whitaker Or Bob Fitzsimmons Who Should Be Remembered As The Greater Fighter?

Apples and oranges though both of the highest degree in the broad spectrum of what we discuss as boxing. I see no need for differentiation. They fought under such different circumstances. I am not so sure Pernell would have flourished in the 1890's as did Bob or vice versa with Bob in the 1990's.

 

This content is protected

 

And again I say apples and oranges. There can be no single set of criteria when regarding two fighters from such different eras and circumstances. There is no linear list of 1 thru 100 greatest fighters, no matter how some on here would desire this sporting enterprise to be quantified. It's simply a ridiculous task. And no offense, but this is simply a ridiculous question.

 

I will go with PW by a slight margin since I feel like he handed the legendary JC Chavez his first loss. Fitz had great success even in his forties which is amazing. Also, like many onn these boards, I think that Whitaker should have got the win against De La Hoya which would have made him the first man to do it. He also shut out Greg Haugen in a fight that many thought would be a pick em' type of deal going in. Nothing against Fitz but I think Whitaker gets the nod here. Fitz at about 170lbs. had remarkable success against men that often outweighed himself by 50lbs. and more. He was a legend but PM is even more of a legend. Both are ATG's though.

Edge - Whitaker

 

The JC fight was a draw. Scoreboard. I had it scored for Pea by a round from about 13 rows up. Later scored it on tape about the same. He certainly won his rounds much more emphatically but nothing to grant a 10-8. The rounds I gave Chavez were definitely closer. In the 10 point must, though, it comes out looking the same.

Oscar clearly won that fight in my book. Of course Pea was going to make it ugly and he did. Still, Oscar took the rounds.

A lot of what Pea did in the ring fell under no criteria for point-scoring, not effective, not aggressive and not really even defensive, just show-boating asshat theatrics. I'm being hyper-critical here because he is an all-time great, top 25 in LB4LB in my book. However, he is given too much credit at times for the wrong things and not enough for some of the grit he showed.

 

At the moment I have Fitzsimmons rated a few spots higher. He's in the 10-15 range while Whitaker is in the top 20.

 

I for one much preferred when he was (for the most part) all business rather than when he would resort to clowning. Brilliant all around technical boxer at his best.

 

Yes. Amazing fighter. I actually think he didn't live up to his potential, which is scary to think about.

 

Fitz he has done what to this day nobody has done held linear titles from middle to heavy.

 

I think Whitaker DID show us everything he had, its just that at the time when he was on top, he wasnt really given the credit by dumbass fans that he should have got.... he`s getting it now but its annoying that some fighters dont get fully appreciated until they have long gone.

Of course the Chavez result didnt help, that victory being official on his record would have been better than unofficial, no doubt.

Also, guys like DLH & Trinidad would never have beaten him at 147 anywhere up until the 2nd McGirt fight... but they waited until he started slipping before having a go.

A DLH & Tito victory would have likely been enough to catapult him into any top 10 list... he already makes my top 10 but I dont consider boxers with 0 or poor footage. He was better than those guys regardless of the size difference & they knew it, believe that, Pernell was avoided by those guys until he was on the slide, not his fault IMO.

 

Clear example of boxing moving forward, boxing wasn't much of a sport then, the technique was prehistoric, Kelly Pavlik would be a boxing master and Heavyweight Champ in those days and Pavlik is obviously average today

Whitaker by FAR

 

Fizsimmons is the better fighter pound for pound and his career acomplishments are more impressive on paper.