Ray Leonard vs. Pernell Whitaker

Oscar, possibly by stoppage.

Answered already. Oscar was in his prime for the mentioned fights, whereas Whitaker was very clearly not. VERY clearly.

 

I dont have time to be responding to long posts. I am 21 year old. I would rather be out drinking beer, boxing, or hanging with girls. sorry man.

I never said it was a bad pick, just that you left oscar off and that he and shane had similiar lightweight careers.

I am very confused now, how did I attempt to embarrass you, and what subject did I change it too? huh???

clear? sure, but Dont forget the word close, because the fight was extremley close. shane was also at his best for forrest and got embarrased twice.

 

Where was Pernell ranked when Rivera twice made him look bad, oh yeah he was the general consensue for #1 p4p. Floyd Mayweather is 31, I would love to see a 32 year old Mayweather struggle with a Rivera type fighter and arguably lose to him. Hell, Mayweather if he chooses to remain as a fighter, will probably be worldclass until hes 35. He wont use the, Im washed up at 32 arguement to excuse shitty performances.

 

The cocaine habit had nothing at all to do with it I'm sure. And how are you going to base his level off of his P4P placement, when you routinely tear down his win over Chavez, citing him being past his prime despite the fact that he was #1?

And answer my questions, if he was in his prime, was Rivera a better fighter than Buddy McGirt, or are you just going to make a fool of yourself for the umpteenth time in a debate?

 

Sorry man, it was just that my post ws about Oscar not being a top-10 ww historically, and then we were on the subject of Shane and Oscar. I get your point about them at lightweight though.

PS- i like the part about hangin with bitches and drinking beer!!! Got me good there!!!

 

I dont have him in my top 10 either, so I guess were argueing about nothing.

 

I'm not making a fool out of myself, you just keep bringing up chavez and mcgirt and thinking that you are answering the question by doing this. I mean you had Whitaker beating Oscar De La Hoya in 1997, yet you are going to make excuses for him arguably losing to rivera and being made to look bad against hurtado.

 

Sorry Suzie, i meant in a h2h sense though, we may still agree?

 

ya i have him just outside my top 10, but not in it. If he beats Mayweather at 147lb in rematch at age 35, I will move him into my top 10 all time welters.

 

Yea , that may get him in, would be remarkable, seriously doubt it will happen though, will be the first to hold my hand up if it does.

 

De La Hoya was his last great effort, his first one since the Vasquez fight as well, which he looked no better in to me. This happens a lot late in a great fighter's career when he's past his prime, he finds it in himself one last time to put up a top notch performance. Sometimes it's only a glimpse, sometimes a full performance. Watch Griffith/Monzon II for a good example, or for a glimpse, the fifth round of Jones/Tarver III.

 

Even though Ray is the bigger man, he's got speed like no one Whitaker ever faced. Ray also had the strength to compete above 160 lbs. Whitaker was clearly stretching at 154.

Whitaker had more than his hands full when he faced McGirt the first time. Whitaker is a bit faster than McGirt, and probably as physically strong as well. Whitaker would be at an athletic disadvantage, as well as a size disadvantage, to Leonard.

I just don't see any way for Whitaker to win.

 

All Mcgirt had to do was drop Whitaker and the fight would have most likely been a draw. I dont see this as a very close chess match like everyone else does.

 

H2H Leonard beats Whitaker at welterweight, but IMO Whitaker is the more complete fighter when looking at their strengths and weaknesses.

 

Leonard wins this one, but Whitaker's far from his best weight or time period. It's akin to Leonard vs Monzon, Monzon vs Foster, Hagler vs Spinks etc. The bigger "great" given similar peak quotients will almost always win.