Putting together an ATG List: Could Pernell Whitaker find himself above Ray Leonard?

SRL had the skill AND the "eraser". Talk about a rare combo!

 

Yes he did but he was never as busy or aggresive offensively as Leonard. I think Ray had all the necessary tools to win by hitting and not getting hit as well (hes that great of an athlete) but, he always had that mindset of putting on fireworks. He projected power and brutality which at the end of the day is more appreciated in fighting.

I think in Sports, you have to consider the excitement factor. While Pea commands silent appreciation, Leonard awes people and brought fans to the sport jsut like the way Ali has done. You need extra credit for that.

 

I voted for Ray. They're both great, though.

 

I voted Whitaker and to be honest, Im not sure I can come up with an argument that can convince anyone of this but I really believe he could ranked higher. I feel he was so dominant at Lightweight and Welterweight and fought great fighters at both weights over a lot of defences and many years. Aside from Leonard spectacular reign at Welterweight, he didnt have any real sucess at other weights. I know Im gonna get

This content is protected

for that, but really he didnt. The win over Hagler was good, but Hears 2 and Duran 3 were more a matter of luck and timing. The wins over Duran 1, Hearns 1, and Benitez define the bulk of his career and those fights were in 2 years period at the only weight he was dominant- Welterweight. Whitaker was the man for almost 10 straight years consistently beating opponents that were good for any generation. Leonard is the bigger name when you talk about p4p, but he was not p4p the better fighter. That is a myth. One of the best at 147 ever. Not outside of it though. Whitaker was more consistant and had greater longevity. Skillwise it is close, but I think he takes it too.

 

I go with Leonard here. Whitaker does have the edge in defense and jab (although Leonard was good in these areas too), and I like the fact that he was more active of a fighter and didn't cherry-pick towards the end of his career like Leonard did, but Leonard was the better fighter and beat greater opposition. Whitaker's resume is very good, but Leonard beat undefeated versions of Benitez and Hearns, and a 73-1 Duran. Even though Hagler was on the decline, so was Leonard too. Leonard was the complete package. Speed, power, defense, adaptability, stamina, intelligence, great finishing ability.

Judging by the way Leonard fought against Kalule, another fast and tricky southpaw, I do think Whitaker would give Leonard a fairly tough fight @ 147. Leonard would win, but he'd surely miss a lot and would not dominate.

 

Even tho you could argue who had more ability in the ring, Leonard fought & beat the better fighters so he must get the nod.

 

Rocky Marciano would lose to Tommy Morrison. Tony Canzoneri wouldn't be able to get work as JMM's sparring partner.

Just saying.

 

leonard is great but i am a hagler fan. sweet pea is far more skilled than leonard. sweet pea is the best pure boxer i have ever seen on tape. i voted for sweet pea.

 

Yes i agree with you I have Whittaker higher than most maybe top 10, but i cant put him above Leonard for the reasons you stated. Good post:good

 

27. Jake LaMotta
29. Emile Griffith
47. Marvin Hagler
55. Carlos Monzon


Bert is nuts.

 

I would also rank Leonard higher but not by that much.

 

Bert not ranking Michael Spinks in the top 100 is pretty outrageous.

 

I'm a big fan of both but I rate Sugar Ray above Sweet Pea.