Whitaker's Reign

Man, nobody here really gives a **** about 'Whitaker's Reign'. Participation level and feedback is awful in this thread. I understand that a simple "No." will suffice, but damn.

 

Really it was a matter if timing. Whitaker had a year, maybe, as the man. Before that it was Chavez; then there was that ridiculous draw which ruined his finest moment. And just like that he started to slip even as Roy Jones turned in a cartoonish effort against Toney that made his fight with Chavez seem two sided.

 

Well yeahs, Chavez is better than Toney. He came in two pounds over what he'd been fighting at, Toney had to lose 44. :hey

Year End Of...

1989
1-Tyson
2-Chavez
3-Whitaker
4-Nunn
5-Esparragoza
6-Taylor
7-Nelson

1990
1-Chavez
2-Whitaker
3-Nunn
4-Esparragoza
5-Taylor

1991
1-Chavez
2-Whitaker
3-Norris
4-Holyfield
5-Taylor
6-Bowe
7-McGirt

1992
1-Chavez
2-Whitaker
3-Norris
4-Canizales
5-McGirt
6-Bowe
7-Nelson

1993
1-Whitaker
2-Chavez
3-Toney

1994
1-Whitaker
2-Jones
3-Canizales

1995
1-Whitaker
2-Jones
3-Lopez

1996
1-Jones
2-De La Hoya
3-Whitaker

1997
1-De La Hoya
2-Jones
3-Trinidad
4-Whitaker

 

I'll be honest. I'm surprised. That's from the one where they tabulate the results from many writers right. Or is that the rings pick?

Anyway Lopez and Canizales being there makes up for the grave injustice done to our boy Roy.

 

You don't think Whitaker deserved '94, '95? Beat the hell out of McGirt in their rematch then went up to 154 and beat the much bigger and established holder in Vasquez (who was #1 at the time, just as McGirt at 147 before his first fight with Whitaker).

 

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

Giving Whitaker the benefit of the doubt at the time and keeping him at #1 was just fine, but honestly, by that point, he wasn't the best fighter in boxing anymore. In retrospect, that seems pretty clear.

I think a similar thing is happening right now, btw. Floyd, like Pea, retains the top spot because of all the quality work he's put into his career and he'll likely keep it on most lists until he loses or at least looks real bad in a fight, but I personally don't see him as being genuinely the best fighter in boxing anymore. Not that he's far off or anything, but as they are now, I think Ward's better, and maybe Donaire, too. Those two have certainly been doing more impressive work recently.

It's probably part of the reason why a lot of P4P kings seem to fall so very far so quickly. There's a tendency to rate them as #1 when they really aren't #1 anymore.

 

OF COURSE, it would be Borges.

(Thanks for these wonderful scans, SS. Priceless stuff to me. :thumbsup)

 

Totally agree Cob. Ward is definitely better than Floyd right now - probably has been for some years actually. Similarly I'd say Roy was unofficially the best in the sport since around 94.

 

Ron probably thought Julio was going to walk through Whitaker, probably up to round 7 at least, thereafter he was shot

He does have a point though about the importance of mettle in assessing a fighter's greatness. It's hard to call someone great unless they do have to bare their soul. Your true character gets revealed in times of pressure, as they say...

I think Whitaker proved himself in matadoring a strong bull of a fighter in Vasquez, knocking out Hurtado when he hadn't stopped anyone late before, in schooling DLH with an at that point vastly inferior offense and staying in there with a broken jaw as Trinidad was walking him down. :good

 

In those two years Whitaker went 5-0 beating McGirt, Cardona, Vasquez, Jacobs, and Rodriguez. Vasquez was a champion and three of the other four were top 10 guys with the rematch with McGirt being especially noteworthy.

During that same time period Roy Jones went 6-0. He was significantly more dominant than Whitaker who was dropped twice and held close by Vasquez. He beat: Garcia, Tate, Toney, Byrd, Paz, and Thornton. I'll concede that, on the average Whitaker fought the better guys. But Roy has, not just the best single victory but the more impressive ones. Thomas Tate had mover been stopped before (and would never be again) and that included taking everything Julian Jackson could throw at him over a 12 round pummeling. He didn't last 12 minutes with Jones. Thornton had given Toney a good work out; Jones demolished him. Byrd and Garcia were dismissed effortlessly and Paz was perhaps the most outmatched individual I've ever seen fight a champion. Those guys were no worse than Jacobs. I can see the argument for Whitaker. I just don't think that its strong.

 

It's interesting how some fighters can be perceived during their time and how they are perceived post career.

Some were questioning whether Chavez would overtake Ray Robinson during his rise to 87-0. More often than not you don't see his name amongst the 20 best fighters now. Will probably only get downgraded even further from hereon too...

Chavez had a pretty ignominious fall, 'copping out' against Randall, quitting against DLH and getting questionable decisions against the likes of MAG along the way.

Roy too had a pretty bad fall from grace. Consecutive knockouts and then a string of horrible performances where he's looked a shell of himself, taking losses to guys he'd have schooled easily in his pomp.

Whitaker, although having a pretty rapid fade, by contrast showed quite a bit of character in his post-prime days, and people who always wondered whether he had heart to back up his skills got their answer when his skills faded away and he was left naked with his heart in the ring.

Sometimes the way a fighter ends their career can make people change their perception rapidly.

 

There's definitely an argument, and that's in 20/20 hindsight. At the time? It's probably 100% justified. So which years do you unofficially give Whitaker considering he made Ramirez (twice), Haugen, Nelson and Nazario look amateur in becoming the undisputed lightweight champion (something that has not been done since)? Taking a strap off Pineda at 140, going up and beating the #1 Welter in the world (and Lineal Champ) in McGirt in a third weight class, all before proving himself superior to Chavez, whom you've both said he would've beaten even years prior to the actual fight? And with Julio being basically shot at that point, right? :rofl I'll give you Jones, but where's the get-back? He's on par with either of them peak-for-peak and greater than both.

Bout to crash. Goodnight.

 

Goodnight my ferrous friend.

Clearly he's the best by '93. Probably a few years before. '91 maybe. Its nebulous either way because it is to hard to tell who the best is. Who was better in '87 Chavez or Tyson? Who was better in '74 Ali, Monzon, or Duran? Pea can be a better fighter than either guy and not be the best fighter in the world in any one year by doing it the ****** Spahn way; jaw dropping consistency. Though I feel the real difference between these guys is negligible.