Whitaker better than Robinson and Duran

I cannot argue with such an opinion. Yes, no two fighters are the same, but Whitaker was quite simply a ring wizard. He could be very unorthodox, technically, at times. But for the most part he was fundamentally very sound.

Whitaker was as good as any fighter in the history of the sport when it comes down to skill and variety inside the ring. B Leonard, Willie Pep, Ezzard Charles, Sugar Ray Robinson, Roberto Duran, Joe Napoles, Sugar Ray Leonard. It doesn't matter. Whitaker is at the very least on par with them all when it comes down to skill and technical excellence.

 

whitaker falls a bit short of robinson for me, based on power, workrate and agression.
i dont rate the top lw's above each other, whitaker and duran were both unique, highly skilled but slightly limited by out the ring motivational issues

 

robinson> whitaker> Duran> everyone else

 

Pernell Whitaker back at that time was my favorite fighter. After his very early pro years he became an aggressive pocket fighter. He didnt dance around he steped around and was always in a position to counter.

Talking about pure boxing brilliance check out his fight against Harold Brazier {a good journeymen}. He was just a masterpiece of skills and smarts.

His power was good enough to gain respect. He also was an underated bodypuncher. He scored KDs to the body on several occasions...Poli Diaz, Rafael Pinada who was dangerous at 140.

When he beat Chavez it was very satisfying for me because I won about a 5 year arguement with my uncle who said Chavez would make him quit on his stool.

There will never be another Sweet Pea.

 

Whitaker was definitley one of the best fighters of his generation. If not THE best. Not sure whether he can be ranked above the likes of Duran and Robinson though.

 

You mention workrate. I can only assume you haven't seen much of Whitaker fight. His workrate was one of his best attributes. He threw a crazy amount of punches against Haugen and Ramirez. Later against McGirt in the rematch at welterweight as well. Outwith those fights, his workrate wasn't an issue.

You also penalise Whitaker got lack of aggression. Thats quite stupid as he wasn't an aggressive fighter. Thats like me holding Duran's lack of backfoot boxing ability against him.

 

i was only directly comparing him with robinson, there are losses in fights he should have won anyway, but could have done more,

 

I prefer the power and aggression that Robinson has.

I think Joe Louis might be the greatest fighter which film evidence to back it up.

But you know, there are about a dozen fighters who looked a good 10/10 perfect when they were absolutely primed.
Hagler, Ali, etc.

 

Those 3 (Robinson, Pea, Duran) are amongst the best fighters ever filmed, just a bit different in style but on each others level, I`d add Ray Leonard to that list as well tbh.

Personally I think Robinson is the best if I had to choose, I`d have Duran, Whitaker & Leonard even.... Duran is the more natural fighter of those 3 tho, he never had their athleticism but was still no lesser a fighter.

 

There's not much footage of Joe Gans, but the footage we do have is breathtaking.

 

Tae-Shik Kim says you're wrong, Manassa.