View Full Version : Best fighters of the 90's?


Pastrano
04-19-2011, 03:30 PM
Gimme your top 10 lists p4p and name the guy you thought was best in each division.

p4p:
1. Roy Jones Jr.
2. James Toney
3. Oscar De La Hoya
4. Pernell Whitaker
5. Julio Cesar Chavez
6. Terry Norris
7. Evander Holyfield
8. Erik Morales
9. Kostya Tszyu
10. Ricardo Lopez

Heavyweight: Evander Holyfield
Cruiserweight: Orlin Norris
Lt Heavyweight: Dariusz Michalczewski
S. Middleweight: Roy Jones Jr.
Middleweight: James Toney
Lt Middleweight: Terry Norris
Welterweight: Oscar De La Hoya
Lt Welterweight: Julio Cesar Chavez ('90-'95)/Kostya Tszyu ('95-99)
Lightweight: Shane Mosley (Whitaker '90-'91)
S Featherweight: Azumah Nelson
Featherweight: Naseem Hamed
S Bantamweight: Erik Morales
Bantamweight: Orlando Canizales
S Flyweight: Johnny Tapia
Flyweight: Mark Johnson
Lt Flyweight: Michael Carbajal
Minimumweight: Ricardo Lopez

Barn
04-19-2011, 03:38 PM
Pernell Whitaker gotta be 1 surely.

SPREAD
04-19-2011, 03:41 PM
Whitaker> Jones Jnr

Pastrano
04-19-2011, 03:42 PM
Pernell Whitaker gotta be 1 surely.

Why? He lost both fights to Wilfredo Rivera in reality, got dominated by Oscar and later Tito. He also should've lost the first fight to McGirt. I think he's rated as high as he should, maybe you can make a case he should be at nr.3. I think he was at his best in late 80's and very beginning of the 90's.

People, we are talking about their ACHIEVEMENTS in this decade, not who was the best one still left fighting!

Barn
04-19-2011, 03:46 PM
Why? He lost both fights to Wilfredo Rivera in reality, got dominated by Oscar and later Tito. He also should've lost the first fight to McGirt. I think he's rated as high as he should, maybe you can make a case he should be at nr.3. I think he was at his best in late 80's and very beginning of the 90's.

People, we are talking about their ACHIEVEMENTS in this decade, not who was the best one still left fighting!
Oh right my bad didn't unserstand the context.

RubenSonny
04-19-2011, 03:47 PM
Why? He lost both fights to Wilfredo Rivera in reality, got dominated by Oscar and later Tito. He also should've lost the first fight to McGirt. I think he's rated as high as he should, maybe you can make a case he should be at nr.3. I think he was at his best in late 80's and very beginning of the 90's.

:pat::pat::pat:

People, we are talking about their ACHIEVEMENTS in this decade, not who was the best one still left fighting!

Whitaker has the best win of the 90s...

Pastrano
04-19-2011, 03:50 PM
:pat::pat::pat:



Whitaker has the best win of the 90s...

Which is? Chavez? That was not an official win.

RubenSonny
04-19-2011, 03:54 PM
Which is? Chavez? That was not an official win.

........................:ugh:

Pastrano
04-19-2011, 03:56 PM
........................:ugh:

give me YOUR lists!:rolleyes:

pacquia0
04-19-2011, 04:04 PM
........................:ugh:

Chavez was past prime.

IronDanHamza
04-19-2011, 04:06 PM
People seem to forget Whitaker held World Titles across 4 weight classes during the 90's alone.

He was on the decline half way through the decade but what he achieved from 90-95 was alot to say the least.

Beat fighters like;

Nelson
Mcgirt
Chavez (He won)
Vasquez
And I personally felt he beat Oscar, although very debatable.

Defended his Lightweight title 6 times.

Defended his Welterweight title offically 7 times.

All during the 90's. Which is pretty damn good, really.

SCtrojansbaby
04-19-2011, 04:14 PM
1.Roy Jones
2.Julio Cesar Chavez
3.Evander Holyfield
4.James Toney
5.Felix Trinidad

The Surgeon
04-19-2011, 04:23 PM
I have Roy Jones as THE fighter of the 90's FOLLOWED by Sweet Pea


After that its tougher

JAB5239
04-19-2011, 04:42 PM
Chavez was past prime.

Chavez was in the top 2 in every p4p standing at the time and had rattled off 23 ko's in his last 25 fights.

JAB5239
04-19-2011, 04:45 PM
[QUOTE=Pastrano;10405228]Why? He lost both fights to Wilfredo Rivera in reality,

Than in reality he easily beat Chavez.

got dominated by Oscar and later Tito.

He was not dominated by Oscar.

He also should've lost the first fight to McGirt.

How do you figure this?

Joeyzagz
04-19-2011, 04:48 PM
Definitive top ten in no order

ODH
Pernell Whitaker
RJJ
Joe Calzaghe
Naseem Hamed
JCC
Tito Trinidad
Lennox Lewis
Evander Holyfield
Mike Tyson

CarlosG815
04-19-2011, 04:50 PM
Gimme your top 10 lists p4p and name the guy you thought was best in each division.

p4p:
1. Roy Jones Jr.
2. James Toney
3. Oscar De La Hoya
4. Pernell Whitaker
5. Julio Cesar Chavez
6. Terry Norris
7. Evander Holyfield
8. Erik Morales
9. Kostya Tszyu
10. Ricardo Lopez


Good list, Pastrano. Looking at those names reminds me of how great boxing was in the 90's. Lists today consist of guys like Andre Berto and Tim Bradley, which is sad.

Those are legends above and fights like Jones vs Toney, Oscar vs everybody, Terry Norris and his exciting offensive style and the list goes on and on.

I believe that Naseem deserves a spot on that list. He doesn't get a lot of credit but he owned his division and did a lot of good for it. Hamed should be remembered in a better light than what he is.

pacquia0
04-19-2011, 04:52 PM
Chavez was in the top 2 in every p4p standing at the time and had rattled off 23 ko's in his last 25 fights.

He was still an elite fighter but not prime.

JAB5239
04-19-2011, 05:06 PM
He was still an elite fighter but not prime.

I have to respectfully disagree. He had just turned 31, had hardly had a tough fight in years and was in either the 1 or 2 spot p4p. Im not sure how you can say he wasn't prime. He was simply dominated by the better fighter.

Pastrano
04-19-2011, 05:16 PM
[QUOTE]


How do you figure this?

Coz I've scored it for Buddy, 115-114. It was a close fight, but Buddy won.

pacquia0
04-19-2011, 05:22 PM
I have to respectfully disagree. He had just turned 31, had hardly had a tough fight in years and was in either the 1 or 2 spot p4p. Im not sure how you can say he wasn't prime. He was simply dominated by the better fighter.

His prime ended after the Rosario fight when he started drinking, cocaine and not training as hard.

JAB5239
04-19-2011, 05:41 PM
His prime ended after the Rosario fight when he started drinking, cocaine and not training as hard.

You're kidding, right? How in the world does a prime end at 25 years old when you're not only physically dominant, but mentally as well?

Ziggy Stardust
04-19-2011, 05:43 PM
I bet I've scored more of them than you, jackass.:killyou: Gimme your scorecard or stfu.

Son, I've been following boxing for 38 years. I'd hazard to guess I've scored more fights in any given 10 year period then you've WATCHED in your entire life. Now graduate from the Special Ed school or STFU Junior.

Poet

JAB5239
04-19-2011, 05:46 PM
[QUOTE=JAB5239;10405499]

Coz I've scored it for Buddy, 115-114. It was a close fight, but Buddy won.

So you believe this should be counted for a win, but JCC's draw with Pea shouldn't be counted as a loss? :pat:

$BloodyNate$
04-19-2011, 05:48 PM
Gimme your top 10 lists p4p and name the guy you thought was best in each division.

p4p:
1. Roy Jones Jr.
2. James Toney
3. Oscar De La Hoya
4. Pernell Whitaker
5. Julio Cesar Chavez
6. Terry Norris
7. Evander Holyfield
8. Erik Morales
9. Kostya Tszyu
10. Ricardo Lopez

Heavyweight: Evander Holyfield
Cruiserweight: Orlin Norris
Lt Heavyweight: Dariusz Michalczewski
S. Middleweight: Roy Jones Jr.
Middleweight: James Toney
Lt Middleweight: Terry Norris
Welterweight: Oscar De La Hoya
Lt Welterweight: Julio Cesar Chavez ('90-'95)/Kostya Tszyu ('95-99)
Lightweight: Shane Mosley (Whitaker '90-'91)
S Featherweight: Azumah Nelson
Featherweight: Naseem Hamed
S Bantamweight: Erik Morales
Bantamweight: Orlando Canizales
S Flyweight: Johnny Tapia
Flyweight: Mark Johnson
Lt Flyweight: Michael Carbajal
Minimumweight: Ricardo Lopez

I really think you hold alotta pent up hatred towards Whitaker hahaha Obviously.

1. Pernell Whitaker(Roy Jones simply can't hold a candle to his resume)
2. Roy Jones
3. Holyfield
4. Chavez
5. Tyson
6. Lennox
7. Trinidad
8. Oscar
9. Toney
10. Hopkins

pacquia0
04-19-2011, 05:51 PM
You're kidding, right? How in the world does a prime end at 25 years old when you're not only physically dominant, but mentally as well?

Its simple if you dont train properly then you wont be as physically dominant. If you do coke and alcohol in excess then your hardly going to be in a good mental state.

Pastrano
04-19-2011, 05:52 PM
I really think you hold alotta pent up hatred towards Whitaker hahaha Obviously.

1. Pernell Whitaker(Roy Jones simply can't hold a candle to his resume)
2. Roy Jones
3. Holyfield
4. Chavez
5. Tyson
6. Lennox
7. Trinidad
8. Oscar
9. Toney
10. Hopkins

No, its just that Whitaker wasn't as complete as the first 3. He had superb defensive skills and his infighting was good, but he lacked power. At 135 he might've had SOME power, but even there he wasn't among the hardest hitters clearly. I had to laugh watching him trying to hurt Buddy McGirt with single blows.:lol1: Not only was Buddy a more natural ww than him, he also could take a decent punch.

Roy was simply amazing, he had it all, including power. Toney could hit pretty hard too, esp at 160 and 168. Oscar we know could hit and had speed (another thing Whitaker wasn't famous for) and threw great combinations.

JAB5239
04-19-2011, 05:54 PM
Its simple if you dont train properly then you wont be as physically dominant. If you do coke and alcohol in excess then your hardly going to be in a good mental state.

Who wasn't he as physically dominant against? Most of his fights up until Whitaker were 3rd or 4th round Ko's.

$BloodyNate$
04-19-2011, 05:59 PM
No, its just that Whitaker wasn't as complete as the first 3. He had superb defensive skills and his infighting was good, but he lacked power. At 135 he might've had SOME power, but even there he wasn't among the hardest hitters clearly. I had to laugh watching him trying to hurt Buddy McGirt with single blows.:lol1: Not only was Buddy a more natural ww than him, he also could take a decent punch.

Roy was simply amazing, he had it all, including power. Toney could hit pretty hard too, esp at 160 and 168. Oscar we know could hit and had speed (another thing Whitaker wasn't famous for) and threw great combinations.

I acan agree with that the only thing is Whitaker did it so ****in good he was almost untouchable for a minute and didn't know we were ranking on who was a more complete fighter.

IronDanHamza
04-19-2011, 06:00 PM
No, its just that Whitaker wasn't as complete as the first 3. He had superb defensive skills and his infighting was good, but he lacked power. At 135 he might've had SOME power, but even there he wasn't among the hardest hitters clearly. I had to laugh watching him trying to hurt Buddy McGirt with single blows.:lol1: Not only was Buddy a more natural ww than him, he also could take a decent punch.

Roy was simply amazing, he had it all, including power. Toney could hit pretty hard too, esp at 160 and 168. Oscar we know could hit and had speed (another thing Whitaker wasn't famous for) and threw great combinations.

I'm not sure what this has to do with anything, though.

Although he was as complete as those guys, even if he wasn't, what does that have to do with if someone is greater than another?

crold1
04-19-2011, 06:02 PM
No, its just that Whitaker wasn't as complete as the first 3. He had superb defensive skills and his infighting was good, but he lacked power. At 135 he might've had SOME power, but even there he wasn't among the hardest hitters clearly. I had to laugh watching him trying to hurt Buddy McGirt with single blows.:lol1: Not only was Buddy a more natural ww than him, he also could take a decent punch.

Roy was simply amazing, he had it all, including power. Toney could hit pretty hard too, esp at 160 and 168. Oscar we know could hit and had speed (another thing Whitaker wasn't famous for) and threw great combinations.

Pea lacked speed?

Jab, can you please just ban this nonsense from posting in here?

Pastrano
04-19-2011, 06:03 PM
I acan agree with that the only thing is Whitaker did it so ****in good he was almost untouchable for a minute and didn't know we were ranking on who was a more complete fighter.

Well...thats the way I rank em anyway.:) Also by achievements.

Pastrano
04-19-2011, 06:04 PM
Pea lacked speed?

Jab, can you please just ban this nonsense from posting in here?

It wasn't outstanding, no. At 147 he might 'ave looked fast, but not at 135. He had fast hands, not feet. If he was so fast, how come he got dropped so many times, huh??

crold1
04-19-2011, 06:09 PM
It wasn't outstanding, no. At 147 he might 'ave looked fast, but not at 135. He had fast hands, not feet. If he was so fast, how come he got dropped so many times, huh??

Because he stayed in the pocket and beat dudes up. Made pineda cough blood. Beat Buddy silly in the second half of the rematch. his speed was world class.

JAB5239
04-19-2011, 06:15 PM
Pea lacked speed?

Jab, can you please just ban this nonsense from posting in here?

Unfortunately I think its a true lack of knowledge and a biased agenda against Pea. But he's welcome to his opinion till it starts disturbing this section on the regular even though I find it ludicrous myself.

JAB5239
04-19-2011, 06:18 PM
Because he stayed in the pocket and beat dudes up. Made pineda cough blood. Beat Buddy silly in the second half of the rematch. his speed was world class.

I can't understand how anybody who actually watched Whitaker fight could say he wasn't known for his speed. :dunno:

pacquia0
04-19-2011, 06:18 PM
Who wasn't he as physically dominant against? Most of his fights up until Whitaker were 3rd or 4th round Ko's.

He was winning sure, but he wasnt as good peformance wise. For me his conditioning and ability to cut of the ring werent the same. Theres no way Whitaker beats a prime Chavez.

IronDanHamza
04-19-2011, 06:19 PM
Unfortunately I think its a true lack of knowledge and a biased agenda against Pea. But he's welcome to his opinion till it starts disturbing this section on the regular even though I find it ludicrous myself.

Saying Pernell Whitaker lacked speed is an utterly disturbing comment, In my book.

Ziggy Stardust
04-19-2011, 06:21 PM
Theres no way Chavez beats a prime Whitaker.

Fixed it for you in the interest of accuracy.

JAB5239
04-19-2011, 06:30 PM
He was winning sure, but he wasnt as good peformance wise. For me his conditioning and ability to cut of the ring werent the same. Theres no way Whitaker beats a prime Chavez.

The thing is....he did. Chavez was seen to have been at the top of his game and in his physical prime. You simply cannot change this because it doesn't suit your argument.

RubenSonny
04-19-2011, 06:31 PM
give me YOUR lists!:rolleyes:

I'm good thanks :)

pacquia0
04-19-2011, 06:48 PM
The thing is....he did. Chavez was seen to have been at the top of his game and in his physical prime. You simply cannot change this because it doesn't suit your argument.

Whether he was seen to be at the top of his game or not doesnt matter. What matters is whether he was at the top of his game or not, and he clearly wasnt. Im sure people thought Tyson was going to beat Lewis or Ali was going to beat Holmes.

If Chavez was prime then, Whitaker was prime when he got dominated by Trinidad.

IronDanHamza
04-19-2011, 06:53 PM
Whether he was seen to be at the top of his game or not doesnt matter. What matters is whether he was at the top of his game or not, and he clearly wasnt. Im sure people thought Tyson was going to beat Lewis or Ali was going to beat Holmes.

If Chavez was prime then, Whitaker was prime when he got dominated by Trinidad.

Except, Whitaker was blatently majorly on the decline when he lost to Trinidad and was quite frankly done.

And Tyson and Ali were both blatently shot.

So yeah, not remotely the same as Chavez he didn't show signs of decline in his fights, infact, the exact opposite.

JAB5239
04-19-2011, 06:56 PM
Whether he was seen to be at the top of his game or not doesnt matter. What matters is whether he was at the top of his game or not, and he clearly wasnt. Im sure people thought Tyson was going to beat Lewis or Ali was going to beat Holmes.

If Chavez was prime then, Whitaker was prime when he got dominated by Trinidad.

You're quickly becoming a joke my friend. Whitaker was 36 and his skills clearly eroded against Trinidad in the second to last fight of his career. What fight exactly did Chavez show severely eroded skills in before Whitaker?

Steak
04-19-2011, 06:58 PM
Chavez was faded somewhat by the time he fought Whitaker, but it was very little and offset by the fact that Whitaker probably wasnt quite at his tip top best either.

Whitaker was on coke and had showed obvious signs of decline before the Trinidad fight, ie against Rivera and Hurtado.

you really cant compare the two.

pacquia0
04-19-2011, 07:05 PM
You're quickly becoming a joke my friend. Whitaker was 36 and his skills clearly eroded against Trinidad in the second to last fight of his career. What fight exactly did Chavez show severely eroded skills in before Whitaker?

Chavez had fought 80+ fights and was near the end of his carrear. Like I said there was a gradual decline with Chavez in his stamina and ability to cut of the ring. Chavez is hardly going to turn into some bum overnight.

Chavez was faded somewhat by the time he fought Whitaker, but it was very little and offset by the fact that Whitaker probably wasnt quite at his tip top best either.

Whitaker was on coke and had showed obvious signs of decline before the Trinidad fight, ie against Rivera and Hurtado.

you really cant compare the two.

Chavez was on coke/alcohol. So you obviously can compare the two.

IronDanHamza
04-19-2011, 07:05 PM
Chavez was faded somewhat by the time he fought Whitaker, but it was very little and offset by the fact that Whitaker probably wasnt quite at his tip top best either.

Whitaker was on coke and had showed obvious signs of decline before the Trinidad fight, ie against Rivera and Hurtado.

you really cant compare the two.

He didn't look to faded to me.

He looked pretty fantastic actually, IMO.

pacquia0
04-19-2011, 07:12 PM
He didn't look to faded to me.

He looked pretty fantastic actually, IMO.

Thats down to how great a fighter he is, that even when faded he can look fantastic.

nachorjj
04-19-2011, 07:15 PM
Roy Jones Jr
Pernell Whitaker
Lennox Lewis
James Toney
Oscar De La Hoya
Evander Holyfield
Julio Cesar Chavez
Bernard Hopkins
Felix Trinidad
Riddick Bowe

Steak
04-19-2011, 07:17 PM
He didn't look to faded to me.

He looked pretty fantastic actually, IMO.

thats because he was still a damn good fighter. but I wouldnt say that he was quite as good as he was at lightweight 5 years earlier.

lets not forget that Chavez was on his fourth weight class and after tons of fights, not to mention he would show more obvious signs of wear and tear only 4 months after the Whitaker loss.

Whitaker still beat an amazing fighter, and it might be the best single win of the 90s till today.

JAB5239
04-19-2011, 07:28 PM
Chavez had fought 80+ fights and was near the end of his carrear. Like I said there was a gradual decline with Chavez in his stamina and ability to cut of the ring. Chavez is hardly going to turn into some bum overnight.

Well if thats the was you want to look at it than Whitaker had over 250 fights by the time he met Chavez as JCC's amateur career started with low level professional fights just like his son has done. That isn't the way we judge prime though, is it? As long as you're physically and mentally near your peak you are considered prime. That is unarguably the case with Chavez vs Whitaker.

JAB5239
04-19-2011, 07:31 PM
Roy Jones Jr
Pernell Whitaker
Lennox Lewis
James Toney
Oscar De La Hoya
Evander Holyfield
Julio Cesar Chavez
Bernard Hopkins
Felix Trinidad
Riddick Bowe

I don't think Lewis can rank above any of those names with the exception of Bowe and possibly Hopkins, who's best wins came in the 2000's. Jmo.

IronDanHamza
04-19-2011, 07:34 PM
thats because he was still a damn good fighter. but I wouldnt say that he was quite as good as he was at lightweight 5 years earlier.

lets not forget that Chavez was on his fourth weight class and after tons of fights, not to mention he would show more obvious signs of wear and tear only 4 months after the Whitaker loss.

Whitaker still beat an amazing fighter, and it might be the best single win of the 90s till today.

I still can't see the signs of decline, though.

Chavez had barely lost a round, in YEARS, when he fought Whitaker. He was utterly dominant for years before he fought Whitaker. It may be assumed he was on decline due to his amount of fights he had been in up to it. But I really can't see any signs on decline before he fought Whitaker, and if believe there was, what are they and when did he show them?

He may have shown some after the Whitaker fight but that isn't what were talking about.

pacquia0
04-19-2011, 07:37 PM
Well if thats the was you want to look at it than Whitaker had over 250 fights by the time he met Chavez as JCC's amateur career started with low level professional fights just like his son has done. That isn't the way we judge prime though, is it? As long as you're physically and mentally near your peak you are considered prime. That is unarguably the case with Chavez vs Whitaker.

The amateurs and the pros are diferent things. Whitaker started with low level professional fights as well. Chavez wasnt near any of those peaks due to him losing his desire for the sport and not training as hard. Drug/alcohol addiction.

Obviously as a whitaker nuthugger you dont understand simple logic.

Steak
04-19-2011, 07:39 PM
I still can't see the signs of decline, though.

Chavez had barely lost a round, in YEARS, when he fought Whitaker. He was utterly dominant for years before he fought Whitaker. It may be assumed he was on decline due to his amount of fights he had been in up to it. But I really can't see any signs on decline before he fought Whitaker, and if believe there was, what are they and when did he show them?

He may have shown some after the Whitaker fight but that isn't what were talking about.
this is just like the myth that biggest win=prime. Although he still looked(and was) a beast, you can tell by a few of his fights that he wasnt quite as sharp or had as good of late round stamina as he had at Lightweight.

most if not all people consider him past prime against Randall. and rightly so. this was only 4 months after the Whitaker fight. now, I will without a doubt say he was much better against Whitaker than he was against Randall, but to say he was at his absolute best only 4 months before he was past prime is a pretty damn big jump in a short period of time.

Chavez was starting to fade a little, but it wasnt much, and he was still an outstanding fighter. like I said, Whitaker's win over him might be the best single win since Hagler-Leonard.

I think the best term to use is 'on the slide'. still near the top, but he was on the way down.

pacquia0
04-19-2011, 07:44 PM
RJJ over Toney(weight drained) might be better. As toney always had weight problems but was still able to peform.

Bowe over Holyfield is big also.

$BloodyNate$
04-19-2011, 07:44 PM
Tito Trindad is the only person who can really go around and say I BEAT Pernell Whitaker and even then Whitaker had a broken jaw from early in the fight. I don't count his last fight where he got hurt.

Any other fight Whitaker has loss/draw'd he either got robbed or easily could have got the decision it was that close. He was obviously robbed against Rameriez, robbed against Chavez THAT FIGHT WAS NOT EVEN REMOTELY CLOSE. And a lotta people including me thought he beat Oscar.

That's pretty amazing how Chavez one at the top of peoples P4P rankings and Pernell made him look like a journeyman. He might not of had a lot of power but he was easily one of the greatest body punchers of all time. He's such an underrated body puncher it's ridiculous. How many other defensive fighters can you say went to the body as well as he did?

Pastrano
04-19-2011, 07:48 PM
Tito Trindad is the only person who can really go around and say I BEAT Pernell Whitaker and even then Whitaker had a broken jaw from early in the fight. I don't count his last fight where he got hurt.

Any other fight Whitaker has loss/draw'd he either got robbed or easily could have got the decision it was that close. He was obviously robbed against Rameriez, robbed against Chavez THAT FIGHT WAS NOT EVEN REMOTELY CLOSE. And a lotta people including me thought he beat Oscar.

That's pretty amazing how Chavez one at the top of peoples P4P rankings and Pernell made him look like a journeyman. He might not of had a lot of power but he was easily one of the greatest body punchers of all time. He's such an underrated body puncher it's ridiculous. How many other defensive fighters can you say went to the body as well as he did?
Lets just get this over with, once and for all: HE DID NOT BEAT OSCAR! Seriously, WATCH the fight one more time and SCORE the rounds and then tell me if you can give that fight to Whitaker!? Coz I sure damn can't!

Peace...

Btw, I saw that Ramirez fight and tho I didn't score it it looked like Whitaker did very little and just kept running away. It can work against you of course.

IronDanHamza
04-19-2011, 07:53 PM
this is just like the myth that biggest win=prime. Although he still looked(and was) a beast, you can tell by a few of his fights that he wasnt quite as sharp or had as good of late round stamina as he had at Lightweight.

most if not all people consider him past prime against Randall. and rightly so. this was only 4 months after the Whitaker fight. now, I will without a doubt say he was much better against Whitaker than he was against Randall, but to say he was at his absolute best only 4 months before he was past prime is a pretty damn big jump in a short period of time.

Chavez was starting to fade a little, but it wasnt much, and he was still an outstanding fighter. like I said, Whitaker's win over him might be the best single win since Hagler-Leonard.

I think the best term to use is 'on the slide'. still near the top, but he was on the way down.

Well, It's not the same as that, really. I mean, it's not like he had one dominant win against a good opponent before the Whitaker fight. He had endless, he was just as dominant as he was in his last 5 fights before Whitaker as he was at Lightweight, IMO.

Would you consider Chavez prime in 1990? Because I did and still do. And I can honestly say I don't see a difference between Chavez in 1993 from the one in 1990.

You touched on the idea that you can tell he wasn't as sharp or his stamina wasn't as good as he was at Lightweight. But, I don't see it, how could you tell that? I can't see where he showed that in his numerous fights up to fighting Whitaker.

I agree with you it was probably the best win of the 90's. I guess it's logical to suggest he may be nearing his decline. But I stick by the fact he didn't show signs of decline up to the fight with Whitaker.

Steak
04-19-2011, 07:53 PM
Whiter basically did everyting well. He even had power when he needed it ie Hurtado, Lomeli, Nazario.

he was the best fighter of the 90s.

THE REEDô
04-19-2011, 07:56 PM
son, i've been following boxing for 38 years. I'd hazard to guess i've scored more fights in any given 10 year period then you've watched in your entire life. Now graduate from the special ed school or stfu junior.

Poet

zzzzzing!!!!!

Ziggy Stardust
04-19-2011, 07:56 PM
Whiter basically did everyting well. He even had power when he needed it ie Hurtado, Lomeli, Nazario.

he was the best fighter of the 90s.

^^^^^This right here

Steak
04-19-2011, 07:57 PM
Well, It's not the same as that, really. I mean, it's not like he had one dominant win against a good opponent before the Whitaker fight. He had endless, he was just as dominant as he was in his last 5 fights before Whitaker as he was at Lightweight, IMO.

Would you consider Chavez prime in 1990? Because I did and still do. And I can honestly say I don't see a difference between Chavez in 1993 from the one in 1990.

You touched on the idea that you can tell he wasn't as sharp or his stamina wasn't as good as he was at Lightweight. But, I don't see it, how could you tell that? I can't see where he showed that in his numerous fights up to fighting Whitaker.

I agree with you it was probably the best win of the 90's. I guess it's logical to suggest he may be nearing his decline. But I stick by the fact he didn't show signs of decline up to the fight with Whitaker.
I see it. he wasnt as effortless or calculating as he used to be, and showed more disregard for defense in the mid 90s.

it was kind of like Roy Jones. he was dominant as hell up until he fought Tarver, then he was past prime. You can still notice he wasnt as good as his 168lb days, despite beating the crap out of everyone almost effortlessly up until Tarver.

IronDanHamza
04-19-2011, 07:59 PM
Jab and IDH are obviously Whitaker-fanboys, I never waste much time arguing or debating with your kind.:rolleyes: You may believe what you want, but its not the truth just because you think so. No matter what one says, they will still continue nuthugging Pernell and ignore the facts.

Let's be honest, Pastrano. Are you honestly calling someone else a nuthugger that's 'ignoring facts'?

Are you not the guy who has Oscar a #6 WW? That claims Oscar dominated Whitaker? That believes Oscar should be ranked above Ray Leonard? I mean, come on. You have no place calling someone else a 'nuthugger'.

I'm not even nuthugging Pernell Whitaker. I'm merely saying Chavez didn't show any signs of decline up to the Whitaker fight, simply because he didn't.

Ziggy Stardust
04-19-2011, 08:00 PM
No matter what one says, they will still continue nuthugging Pernell and ignore the facts.

The way you're nuthugging on McGirt? That's the only way anyone could score that fight for Buddy: If they were watching through nuthugging fan-boi lenses :yadayadayada9:

Poet

Pastrano
04-19-2011, 08:01 PM
Let's be honest, Pastrano. Are you honestly calling someone else a nuthugger that's 'ignoring facts'?

Are you not the guy who has Oscar a #6 WW? That claims Oscar dominated Whitaker? That believes Oscar should be ranked above Ray Leonard? I mean, come on. You have place calling someone else a 'nuthugger'.

I'm not even nuthugging Pernell Whitaker. I'm merely saying Chavez didn't show any signs of decline up to the Whitaker fight, simply because he didn't.

I don't care about the Chavez fight. I think you are overrating his speed, you and JAB and cord. He wasn't exactly Camacho or somebody. And just so that idiot poet knows, I've scored more than 40 fights altogether. And I haven't been doing that as long as him perhaps, but I sure GOT experience you buffoon.

Ziggy Stardust
04-19-2011, 08:05 PM
I've scored more than 40 fights in as retarded a manner as humanly possible

Fixed it for ya :geek9:

IronDanHamza
04-19-2011, 08:05 PM
I see it. he wasnt as effortless or calculating as he used to be, and showed more disregard for defense in the mid 90s.

it was kind of like Roy Jones. he was dominant as hell up until he fought Tarver, then he was past prime. You can still notice he wasnt as good as his 168lb days, despite beating the crap out of everyone almost effortlessly up until Tarver.

I think the fact Roy Jones gained and lost 20Lbs in the space of a year might have had something to do with that, no?

I don't think that situation relates, considering that kind of weight gain and loss is a pretty big factor.

If you see it, then cool. I can't see what you're seeing.

Steak
04-19-2011, 08:11 PM
I think the fact Roy Jones gained and lost 20Lbs in the space of a year might have had something to do with that, no?

I don't think that situation relates, considering that kind of weight gain and loss is a pretty big factor.

If you see it, then cool. I can't see what you're seeing.
that was part of it, but not all of it. reality was Roy had been on the slide for a little, but it was very little and he was still an outstanding fighter. I thought Roy looked better in his 168 days than his late 175lb days, thats for sure.

its difficult to notice a fighter isnt as good as they once were when theyre still dominating good competition, but they still can be on the slide.

again, Chavez was very noticably worse against Randall, and that was a mere 4 months after the Whitaker fight...thats like nothing. you dont instantly go from being at your all time best to past prime in 4 months, barring some really bad occurence outside the ring. and that isnt really 'past prime', thats just bad preparation.

incidently, Roy didnt have to straight up lose '20lbs' of muscle, since like most fighters all you have to do is lose a lot of water weight. I think that weight loss DID effect him...but not to the degree some people make it out to be.

IronDanHamza
04-19-2011, 08:27 PM
that was part of it, but not all of it. reality was Roy had been on the slide for a little, but it was very little and he was still an outstanding fighter. I thought Roy looked better in his 168 days than his late 175lb days, thats for sure.

its difficult to notice a fighter isnt as good as they once were when theyre still dominating good competition, but they still can be on the slide.

again, Chavez was very noticably worse against Randall, and that was a mere 4 months after the Whitaker fight...thats like nothing. you dont instantly go from being at your all time best to past prime in 4 months, barring some really bad occurence outside the ring. and that isnt really 'past prime', thats just bad preparation.

incidently, Roy didnt have to straight up lose '20lbs' of muscle, since like most fighters all you have to do is lose a lot of water weight. I think that weight loss DID effect him...but not to the degree some people make it out to be.

Although hardly dominated, he didn't look good against Randall and showed blatent signs of decline. But how do we know why that was. It might be the Whitaker fight took the confidence out of him, after all, it was his first loss. (He must have known he lost the fight, regardless to him saying he felt he won) Sometimes after a first loss this kind of thing happens, especially after being so dominant for so long. Not that I'm saying this is what is was, but I'm saying we don't know why.

The facts are, he showed no signs of decline before the Whitakeer fight to me, he might have to you, but I can't see them. And I only identify someone as past prime when I see signs of decline, and I'm sorry, but I just don't see them.

I disagree with your stance on Roy Jones. Roy Jones says himself the weight had a massive effect on him, he may be just saying that, but I believe him. I mean, he showed clear signs of decline when he moved back down to LHW, in his very first fight. I have no reason to disbelieve Roy.

RubenSonny
04-19-2011, 08:38 PM
lets not forget that Chavez was on his fourth weight class and after tons of fights

Yet you don't mention that it wasn't fought at full welterweight limit, his record though excellent was very padded and that it was Peas '3rd' weight class, and thats not even as bad as it sounds if you only count the 'original 8'.

No version of Chavez would beat Pea.

Steak
04-19-2011, 08:42 PM
I do believe the weight gain took something out of him. but I dont think it was the only thing that made him past prime. I think he had been on the slide since before the Tarver fight.

the thing is that he only weighed 193 against Ruiz. you can cut 15lbs of water weight fairly easily, a lot of fighters rehydrate more than that in 24 hours. and the Tarver fight was 8 months after fighting Ruiz, thats a pretty good amount of time to settle back down about 5 or so pounds.

and Roy never 'got it back' either. Thats why Tarver said 'do you have any excuses tonight Roy?' in the rematch, because Roy had used the cutting weight excuse in their first fight and was confident he had settled those issues in the rematch. well, didnt seem that way.

Roy wasnt just effected by losing weight. he was on the slide to begin with.

IronDanHamza
04-19-2011, 08:42 PM
Yet you don't mention that it wasn't fought at full welterweight limit, his record though excellent was very padded and that it was Peas '3rd' weight class, and thats not even as bad as it sounds if you only count the 'original 8'.

No version of Chavez would beat Pea.

I agree with this statement.

IronDanHamza
04-19-2011, 08:50 PM
I do believe the weight gain took something out of him. but I dont think it was the only thing that made him past prime. I think he had been on the slide since before the Tarver fight.

the thing is that he only weighed 193 against Ruiz. you can cut 15lbs of water weight fairly easily, a lot of fighters rehydrate more than that in 24 hours. and the Tarver fight was 8 months after fighting Ruiz, thats a pretty good amount of time to settle back down about 5 or so pounds.

and Roy never 'got it back' either. Thats why Tarver said 'do you have any excuses tonight Roy?' in the rematch, because Roy had used the cutting weight excuse in their first fight and was confident he had settled those issues in the rematch. well, didnt seem that way.

Roy wasnt just effected by losing weight. he was on the slide to begin with.

I don't think it mattered by then. The damage was done, Roy was offically on the decline, and the weight loss was the reason for that wide decline, IMO. I don't believe he ever truley recovered from the weight loss.

It wasn't just water weight though, he has clearly gained muscle mass when he weighed in at 190. And he had to lose that to get back down. That's no excuse for Roy, that was his choice, but it wasn't just water weight again like I just touched on, he clearly gained a fair bit of muscle mass.

When he came back down, that was it, the damaage was done. He looked poor against Tarver, and I think that effected his confidence. In the 2nd fight he got caught with that shot, and it was wrap. Roy Jones would never be the same again, and it showed.

Of he's going to claim he was 100% for the 2nd fight, he's a fighter. One that isn't used to looking bad. But I don't believe he was, the weight effected him badly and to me, the Tarver fight showed that. But that's just me opinion, anyway.

Ben Bolt
04-19-2011, 08:55 PM
Julio Cesar was the best fighter during the closing years of the 80's, and the best fighter during the opening years of the 90's ... ruling him out for being selected the best fighter of either decade ...

However, if the question in this thread had been
"Best fighter of the 1900's" ...

Steak
04-19-2011, 09:36 PM
Yet you don't mention that it wasn't fought at full welterweight limit, his record though excellent was very padded and that it was Peas '3rd' weight class, and thats not even as bad as it sounds if you only count the 'original 8'.

No version of Chavez would beat Pea.
Actually, I did mention that Whitaker wasnt at his best either.

and I agree, Chavez would always lose to Whitaker, although their fight would have been even better had they fought at Lightweight, when they both were at their best.

Ziggy Stardust
04-19-2011, 09:43 PM
However, if the question in this thread had been
"Best fighter of the 1900's" ...

Then Chavez wouldn't crack the top-10.

Poet

Steak
04-19-2011, 09:45 PM
I don't think it mattered by then. The damage was done, Roy was offically on the decline, and the weight loss was the reason for that wide decline, IMO. I don't believe he ever truley recovered from the weight loss.

It wasn't just water weight though, he has clearly gained muscle mass when he weighed in at 190. And he had to lose that to get back down. That's no excuse for Roy, that was his choice, but it wasn't just water weight again like I just touched on, he clearly gained a fair bit of muscle mass.

When he came back down, that was it, the damaage was done. He looked poor against Tarver, and I think that effected his confidence. In the 2nd fight he got caught with that shot, and it was wrap. Roy Jones would never be the same again, and it showed.

Of he's going to claim he was 100% for the 2nd fight, he's a fighter. One that isn't used to looking bad. But I don't believe he was, the weight effected him badly and to me, the Tarver fight showed that. But that's just me opinion, anyway.
even with extra muscle gain, many fighters are able to consistantly lose 15+lbs of water weight, and Roy had 8 months to prep. He didnt have to lose 20lbs of muscle, just get to a point where he could have lost enough water weight to make weight. Its not like he had to drain himself to lose 20lbs within two weeks(which fighters have done in the past and still been successful).

dont you think that Roy at 168 was better than at 175? He certainly looked better there than at LHW to me overall.

people think past prime=shot or something drastic, but thats not what I mean at all. there are many varying degrees of being 'past prime', it doesnt just instantly happen overnight. most guys start going downhill at a constant rate, and you simply have to look closely to recongnise it. its even more difficult when the guy is dominating his fights, but its still happening.

Ben Bolt
04-19-2011, 09:52 PM
*************************

Kayoed.

IronDanHamza
04-19-2011, 10:06 PM
even with extra muscle gain, many fighters are able to consistantly lose 15+lbs of water weight, and Roy had 8 months to prep. He didnt have to lose 20lbs of muscle, just get to a point where he could have lost enough water weight to make weight. Its not like he had to drain himself to lose 20lbs within two weeks(which fighters have done in the past and still been successful).

dont you think that Roy at 168 was better than at 175? He certainly looked better there than at LHW to me overall.

people think past prime=shot or something drastic, but thats not what I mean at all. there are many varying degrees of being 'past prime', it doesnt just instantly happen overnight. most guys start going downhill at a constant rate, and you simply have to look closely to recongnise it. its even more difficult when the guy is dominating his fights, but its still happening.

Fighters have lost that amount of weight in quick succession and been successful and some have done it and been unsuccessful. Same way some fighters have been KO'd and been successful and some have been KO'd and been unsuccessful.

Roy is one of those guys who lost weight and was unsuccessful, IMO. Roy and his team said the weight was an issue, could be by lieing? Absolutely. But to me, it's quite clear something had an effect on him in the Tarver fight, and it seems logical to suggest it could very well be the fact he gained and lost quite a vast amount of weight like he suggests.

I consider Roy at his best at 168 however I also consider him prime at 175. I consider him prime in 2002 and on the decline in 2003, for whatever reason. Similar to I do with Chavez.

To me, the Tarver fight identified for whatever reason he is on the decline, before that, to me, he showed no signs of decline, thus I consider him prime. And again, the same goes for Chavez.

You don't agree with that, and that's fine. To me, I consider someone on the decline when I see signs of decline. And I simply can't see any, for Chavez nor Roy Jones. And that's just how it is, my opinion is never going to change on that.

SCtrojansbaby
04-19-2011, 10:38 PM
You don't lose 20 pounds in your mid 30s and be the same. Roy clearly lost his reflexes and explosiveness when he came back down from heavy. Roy should have stayed at heavy/cruiser he could have extended his prime another 3 years or so.

JAB5239
04-19-2011, 10:50 PM
The amateurs and the pros are diferent things. Whitaker started with low level professional fights as well. Chavez wasnt near any of those peaks due to him losing his desire for the sport and not training as hard. Drug/alcohol addiction.

Obviously as a whitaker nuthugger you dont understand simple logic.

First off I couldn't stand Whitaker but can appreciate his career. Second, any world class amateur is better than some guy with 15 or 20 amateur fights who decides to just up and turn pro. Its why you hear about Olympians fighting for championships after 15 or 20 fights and never hear of the taxi cab driver fighting part time getting that shot in the same amount of time. Whitaker was fighting world class professionals in his 14th fight, Chavez in his 43rd. If anybody should have had wear and tear it should have been Pea.

And you still haven't shown me the fight where Chavez showed a significan fall off. Im still waiting.

pacquia0
04-20-2011, 12:36 AM
First off I couldn't stand Whitaker but can appreciate his career. Second, any world class amateur is better than some guy with 15 or 20 amateur fights who decides to just up and turn pro. Its why you hear about Olympians fighting for championships after 15 or 20 fights and never hear of the taxi cab driver fighting part time getting that shot in the same amount of time. Whitaker was fighting world class professionals in his 14th fight, Chavez in his 43rd. If anybody should have had wear and tear it should have been Pea.

And you still haven't shown me the fight where Chavez showed a significan fall off. Im still waiting.

Whitaker's style takes alot less punishment than Chavez. Chavez fought more championship rounds/title fights than Whitaker did. Whitaker had the chance to move up and fight Chavez 3 years earlier but choose to hide at lightweight.

Ive said Chavez was on a gradual decline. Even the Chavez who dominated Camacho didnt have the conditoning or ring movement of old. There is no fight in particular but the Rosario fight was his peek.

JAB5239
04-20-2011, 12:52 AM
Whitaker's style takes alot less punishment than Chavez. Chavez fought more championship rounds/title fights than Whitaker did. Whitaker had the chance to move up and fight Chavez 3 years earlier but choose to hide at lightweight.

Ive said Chavez was on a gradual decline. Even the Chavez who dominated Camacho didnt have the conditoning or ring movement of old. There is no fight in particular but the Rosario fight was his peek.

Every fighter has to eventually start a gradual decline. I agree JCC's peak fight was Rosario, and Im not trying to say he hadn't started his decline. But I strongly disagree that he was no longer prime. He looked bad that night because Pea had the ability to stand in front of him, make him miss and then counter the **** out of him. He was simply the better fighter with the right style. To claim JCC wasn't prime is an insult to Whitakers performance and an excuse for one of boxings greatest warriors.

The Surgeon
04-20-2011, 03:38 AM
I think Chavez was great and still operating at The or around the top of his game when he faced Sweet Pea but there is no way on gods green earth that he won that fight. Whittaker was just a better fighter than Chaves was and thats that, end of. STILL tho i make Roy Jones the fighter of the 90's he was a master in there and unlike Whittaker he could end a fight with one shot, Prime Roy was so explosive. His speed is unrivaled, his reflex's unhuman and he had a great fighting brain too.

Roy and sweet Pea are for me tho definately the 1 and 1A fighters of there era.

Barn
04-20-2011, 03:38 AM
First off I couldn't stand Whitaker but can appreciate his career. Second, any world class amateur is better than some guy with 15 or 20 amateur fights who decides to just up and turn pro. Its why you hear about Olympians fighting for championships after 15 or 20 fights and never hear of the taxi cab driver fighting part time getting that shot in the same amount of time. Whitaker was fighting world class professionals in his 14th fight, Chavez in his 43rd. If anybody should have had wear and tear it should have been Pea.

And you still haven't shown me the fight where Chavez showed a significan fall off. Im still waiting.
How can you not stand Whitaker? I think he's brilliant. lol.

JAB5239
04-20-2011, 05:29 AM
How can you not stand Whitaker? I think he's brilliant. lol.

I just disliked his style and the way he would showboat. I still appreciate his greatness and how effective he was in spite of that. As you said, he was brilliant. It just didn't translate into what I look for in a fighter though. :dunno:

Pastrano
04-20-2011, 06:43 AM
The way you're nuthugging on McGirt? That's the only way anyone could score that fight for Buddy: If they were watching through nuthugging fan-boi lenses :yadayadayada9:

Poet

Not at all. I just think Buddy was an excellent fighter who doesn't get enough credit today and his 1st fight with Whitaker gets overlooked when people talk of Whitaker's close fights.

RubenSonny
04-20-2011, 07:58 AM
what you look for in a fighter seems to be, dreadlocks a glass chin and two left-feet.. Whitaker was the universal P4P No1 for a whole decade and was world class in his first professional fight so there was never no learning process with him, he had it all right from the off and was a joy to watch.. but like so many other Legendary fighters he will be thrown to the History section garbage can by you in favor of your favorite fighters Lewis, Tua & Tommy Morrison

Thats not true.

JAB5239
04-20-2011, 08:02 AM
what you look for in a fighter seems to be, dreadlocks a glass chin and two left-feet.. Whitaker was the universal P4P No1 for a whole decade and was world class in his first professional fight so there was never no learning process with him, he had it all right from the off and was a joy to watch.. but like so many other Legendary fighters he will be thrown to the History section garbage can by you in favor of your favorite fighters Lewis, Tua & Tommy Morrison

First off Whitaker was NOT the universal p4p no.1 fighter for a "whole decade". So once again you've either lied or don't know what you're talking about.

http://boxrec.com/media/index.php/The_Ring_Magazine%27s_Annual_Ratings:_Pound_For_Po und--1990s

Second, If you want to keep trolling and trying to provoke me I'll be happy to ban you completely from this section. You're welcome to keep posting in this section, but consider this fair warning because there won't be another one.

Pastrano
04-20-2011, 08:11 AM
First off Whitaker was NOT the universal p4p no.1 fighter for a "whole decade". So once again you've either lied or don't know what you're talking about.

http://boxrec.com/media/index.php/The_Ring_Magazine%27s_Annual_Ratings:_Pound_For_Po und--1990s

Second, If you want to keep trolling and trying to provoke me I'll be happy to ban you completely from this section. You're welcome to keep posting in this section, but consider this fair warning because there won't be another one.

You gave me a red K, understandably, but I wanna give u a green K now. Lets join our forces against these Pernellhuggers!:D :boxing: I believe Chavez would beat him at 140, he never proved himself at 147 and its a fact. He didn't like fighting above 140 and Whitaker knew this. Lets see who their common opponents where and how they did against them: against MAYWEATHER Whitaker struggled and was knocked down, tho he won the fight and scored a kd himself but still he had a much tougher time than JCC. Chavez DESTROYED Roger twice. Against Ramirez Whitaker lost, I don't care what you say about it, it was a LOSS. Whitaker ran away the whole fight and deserved to lose. JCC stopped Ramirez in 11 and tho it was a competitive fight, he was in control the whole way. Greg Haugen went the distance with Whitaker and lost a wide decision. I've since read that Haugen didn't really make an effort because he was pissed off at his management. Chavez stopped Haugen in 5.

Btw, why didn't Whitaker fight Meldrick Taylor or Camacho?? I think he ducked Camacho in the 80's, while both were lightweights and Camacho called him out publicly after the Ramirez fight, back in '85. Chavez beat both ofc.

JAB5239
04-20-2011, 08:29 AM
feel free....

Fine, have it your way.

IronDanHamza
04-20-2011, 09:47 AM
You gave me a red K, understandably, but I wanna give u a green K now. Lets join our forces against these Pernellhuggers!:D :boxing: I believe Chavez would beat him at 140, he never proved himself at 147 and its a fact. He didn't like fighting above 140 and Whitaker knew this. Lets see who their common opponents where and how they did against them: against MAYWEATHER Whitaker struggled and was knocked down, tho he won the fight and scored a kd himself but still he had a much tougher time than JCC. Chavez DESTROYED Roger twice. Against Ramirez Whitaker lost, I don't care what you say about it, it was a LOSS. Whitaker ran away the whole fight and deserved to lose. JCC stopped Ramirez in 11 and tho it was a competitive fight, he was in control the whole way. Greg Haugen went the distance with Whitaker and lost a wide decision. I've since read that Haugen didn't really make an effort because he was pissed off at his management. Chavez stopped Haugen in 5.

Btw, why didn't Whitaker fight Meldrick Taylor or Camacho?? I think he ducked Camacho in the 80's, while both were lightweights and Camacho called him out publicly after the Ramirez fight, back in '85. Chavez beat both ofc.

It seems to me, Pastrano, that you have a blatent agenda against Pernell Whitaker.

Whitaker in no way shape or form struggled with Roger Mayweather, he pretty much dominated him from start to finish and the KD was more to do with balance and Whitaker wasn't even slightly hurt by the KD.

Whitaker clealry beat Ramirez the first time. You using that against Whitaker and saying he deserved to lose indicates a clear agenda. He did not deserve to lose because he dominated Ramirez, no if's or but's.

I haven't read that anywhere what you sai about Haugen and don't recall it at the time either, but I may be wrong so feel free to provide a link concluding that statment.

Your also trying to imply Whitaker didn't beat Chavez, I mean, seriously?

RubenSonny
04-20-2011, 09:49 AM
Actually, I did mention that Whitaker wasnt at his best either.

and I agree, Chavez would always lose to Whitaker, although their fight would have been even better had they fought at Lightweight, when they both were at their best.

Your post was loaded.

RubenSonny
04-20-2011, 09:53 AM
It seems to me, Pastrano, that you have a blatent agenda against Pernell Whitaker.

Whitaker in no way shape or form struggled with Roger Mayweather, he pretty much dominated him from start to finish and the KD was more to do with balance and Whitaker wasn't even slightly hurt by the KD.

Whitaker clealry beat Ramirez the first time. You using that against Whitaker and saying he deserved to lose indicates a clear agenda. He did not deserve to lose because he domianted Ramirez, no if's or but's.

I haven't read that anywhere what you sai about Haugen and don't recall it at the time either, but I may be wrong so feel free to provide a link concluding that statment.

Your also trying to imply Whitaker didn't beat Chavez, I mean, seriously?

Mayweather troubled Chavez.

IronDanHamza
04-20-2011, 10:01 AM
Mayweather troubled Chavez.

Which further concludes his agenda.

Anyone who claims Whitaker didn't beat Chavez probably has an agenda.

But ANYONE who even contemplates that Whitaker didn't beat Ramirez or struggled with Roger Mayweather has an agenda.

I wouldn't say he troubled Chavez, Chavez always seemed in control of what he wanted to do and put a beating on Mayweather for the most part. But, Mayweather did have his moments in the fight, if that's what you mean.

Pastrano
04-20-2011, 11:22 AM
It seems to me, Pastrano, that you have a blatent agenda against Pernell Whitaker.

Whitaker in no way shape or form struggled with Roger Mayweather, he pretty much dominated him from start to finish and the KD was more to do with balance and Whitaker wasn't even slightly hurt by the KD.

Whitaker clealry beat Ramirez the first time. You using that against Whitaker and saying he deserved to lose indicates a clear agenda. He did not deserve to lose because he dominated Ramirez, no if's or but's.

I haven't read that anywhere what you sai about Haugen and don't recall it at the time either, but I may be wrong so feel free to provide a link concluding that statment.

Your also trying to imply Whitaker didn't beat Chavez, I mean, seriously?
Where did I say that? I never said that. And here's that Haugen quote. Can't post the link coz this site obviously DISAPPROVES of that site, for some reason.

You lost that title the following year to Pernell Whitaker, thoughts?
Greg Haugen: I was pretty disappointed at that time with my management. They didnít know boxing and I didnít know much about the fight business. They were throwing me to the wolves every fight. I was mad, pissed off because I was the champ and I am fighting on the road again. It was kind of my protest fight, a boycott against management. I just didnít throw many punches and lost.

Pastrano
04-20-2011, 11:26 AM
Which further concludes his agenda.

Anyone who claims Whitaker didn't beat Chavez probably has an agenda.

But ANYONE who even contemplates that Whitaker didn't beat Ramirez or struggled with Roger Mayweather has an agenda.

I wouldn't say he troubled Chavez, Chavez always seemed in control of what he wanted to do and put a beating on Mayweather for the most part. But, Mayweather did have his moments in the fight, if that's what you mean.

Are you seriously gonna claim he didn't have ANY moments against Pernell??

Vadrigar.
04-20-2011, 11:37 AM
pernell whitaker too low.

RubenSonny
04-20-2011, 11:41 AM
Mayweather was winning after the first 6 rounds, not as comfortable as HBO made out, if I recall correctly, but he was winning, there wasn't much in it (in terms of points) going in to the 10th but obviously Chavez had took over at that point.

The_Demon
04-20-2011, 12:03 PM
Whitaker is too low,simple as that

Pastrano
04-20-2011, 12:25 PM
Whitaker is too low,simple as that

Oscar beat Paez and Rivera way more convincingly than Whitaker did, he also beat Camacho who Whitaker ducked relentlessly and John John Molina, who was then top 10 p4p material imo. Quartey he also beat. Whitaker would lose to Quartey in all likelihood, since Quartey's jab was so good Whitaker could not establish his own. Quartey was also stronger and arguably faster and had more power.

The_Demon
04-20-2011, 12:29 PM
Oscar beat Paez and Rivera way more convincingly than Whitaker did, he also beat Camacho who Whitaker ducked relentlessly and John John Molina, who was then top 10 p4p material imo. Quartey he also beat. Whitaker would lose to Quartey in all likelihood, since Quartey's jab was so good Whitaker could not establish his own. Quartey was also stronger and arguably faster and had more power.

You need too look at the early 90's aswell as the later years,you need too stop your ridiculous agenda,and you really need too stop using triangle theories

Pastrano
04-20-2011, 12:35 PM
You need too look at the early 90's aswell as the later years,you need too stop your ridiculous agenda,and you really need too stop using triangle theories

They are not triangle theories, lol!:lol1: Just comparing their respective performances against various opponents. If you look past all the overblown hype of Whitaker by the US writers, you'll see that Oscar was just a more complete and overall stronger fighter. 147 wasn't his best weight even, he was best at 135, but he still made many impressive performances at 147. Which is more than can be said for Whitaker, whose 147 career is marred with controversy. 3 disputed decisions, 2 vs Rivera and 1 against McGirt, and being dominated by a virtual unknown (Hurtado) before a last minute salvation.

RubenSonny
04-20-2011, 12:55 PM
you'll see that Oscar was just a more complete and overall stronger fighter. 147 wasn't his best weight even, he was best at 135, but he still made many impressive performances at 147. Which is more than can be said for Whitaker, whose 147 career is marred with controversy. 3 disputed decisions, 2 vs Rivera and 1 against McGirt, and being dominated by a virtual unknown (Hurtado) before a last minute salvation.

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

Pastrano
04-20-2011, 12:56 PM
:rofl::rofl::rofl:

Real intelligent response, yea.

RubenSonny
04-20-2011, 02:26 PM
Real intelligent response, yea.

Meh........fighting fire with fire :)

IronDanHamza
04-20-2011, 02:56 PM
Where did I say that? I never said that. And here's that Haugen quote. Can't post the link coz this site obviously DISAPPROVES of that site, for some reason.

You said, "And even that was disputied :lol1: " When referring to his 'win' over Chavez. Is that not trying to imply he didn't win?

Are you seriously gonna claim he didn't have ANY moments against Pernell??

He had a few moments with Pernell, not many, really.

I would argue he probably had more with Chavez. Whitaker dominated Mayweather.

jrosales13
04-20-2011, 03:02 PM
In terms of skills, I think that Ricardo Lopez was the best in the 90's.

IMO he's the most technically, fundamentally, perfectly, skilled fighter of my lifetime.

But, in terms of greatness it will be Whitaker, with Roy Jones being a close #2 for the 90's.

LOL @ Oscar being the GOAT at WW or even top 10 P4P for the whole decade.

Pastrano
04-20-2011, 03:02 PM
You said, "And even that was disputied :lol1: " When referring to his 'win' over Chavez. Is that not trying to imply he didn't win?



He had a few moments with Pernell, not many, really.

I would argue he probably had more with Chavez. Whitaker dominated Mayweather.

Mayweather had him in trouble in the last 2 rounds obviously. Pea started strong but finished weak.

IronDanHamza
04-20-2011, 03:25 PM
Mayweather had him in trouble in the last 2 rounds obviously. Pea started strong but finished weak.

That still doesn't change the fact that you said Whitaker struggled with Roger Mayweather which is completely false.

IronDanHamza
04-20-2011, 03:30 PM
In terms of skills, I think that Ricardo Lopez was the best in the 90's.

IMO he's the most technically, fundamentally, perfectly, skilled fighter of my lifetime.

But, in terms of greatness it will be Whitaker, with Roy Jones being a close #2 for the 90's.

LOL @ Oscar being the GOAT at WW or even top 10 P4P for the whole decade.

He doesn't claim he is the greatest of all time at WW but he does claim he is #6 at WW.

Which is equally as abserd.

Good to see you in here, by the way. Make it more a regular occurance. :fing02:

Pastrano
04-20-2011, 03:37 PM
JRose you think Oscar isn't a top 10 p4p of the 90's.

CarlosG815
04-20-2011, 03:40 PM
In terms of skills, I think that Ricardo Lopez was the best in the 90's.

IMO he's the most technically, fundamentally, perfectly, skilled fighter of my lifetime.

But, in terms of greatness it will be Whitaker, with Roy Jones being a close #2 for the 90's.

LOL @ Oscar being the GOAT at WW or even top 10 P4P for the whole decade.

He kicked Trinidad's crybaby ass back to Puerto Rico and made him look like a total amateur.

Pastrano
04-20-2011, 03:43 PM
He kicked Trinidad's crybaby ass back to Puerto Rico and made him look like a total amateur.

Exactly! You got a lot of nerve talking about ME hating on Whitaker, what about YOUR hating on Oscar?!?

Barn
04-20-2011, 03:44 PM
The Welterweight division is far too deep for Oscar to be Top 10.

Hearns struggles ffs.

Pastrano
04-20-2011, 03:46 PM
The Welterweight division is far too deep for Oscar to be Top 10.

Hearns struggles ffs.

We're talking about the 90's ww's man.

RubenSonny
04-20-2011, 03:47 PM
He kicked Trinidad's crybaby ass back to Puerto Rico and made him look like a total amateur.

Outboxed him for part of the fight then ran? Yes, kicked his ass? Hell no.

Pastrano
04-20-2011, 03:53 PM
Outboxed him for part of the fight then ran? Yes, kicked his ass? Hell no.

He didn't run bc he was scared, fool. He ran coz he thought he had the fight in the bag.

IronDanHamza
04-20-2011, 03:58 PM
Exactly! You got a lot of nerve talking about ME hating on Whitaker, what about YOUR hating on Oscar?!?

If you're referring to me, I don't hate Oscar.

Do I like him? No. But Do I hate him? Not at all. I have him as a Top 20 ATG WW, which is an excellent feat in my view considering it is possibly the deepest division ever.

Pastrano
04-20-2011, 04:05 PM
If you're referring to me, I don't hate Oscar.

Do I like him? No. But Do I hate him? Not at all. I have him as a Top 20 ATG WW, which is an excellent feat in my view considering it is possibly the deepest division ever.

GOOD. Coz everyone that doesn't rank him as top 10 90's fighter p4p is a HATER.

IronDanHamza
04-20-2011, 04:11 PM
GOOD. Coz everyone that doesn't rank him as top 10 90's fighter p4p is a HATER.

I have him in the top 10 of the 90's.

I had him winning over Trinidad as I had him winning in the second Mosley fight.

However, I had him losing against Whitaker and Sturm.

The same goes for you, though. You have Whitaker stupidly low on your 90's list. And have Oscar #6 at WW.

So you're calling people out for doing something that you are clearly doing; nuthugging and hating.

joseph5620
04-20-2011, 04:18 PM
:thinkerg:

A whitaker nuthugger talking about running.

Whitaker was not a runner. But you would have to actually know something about boxing to know that.

joseph5620
04-20-2011, 04:20 PM
JRose-youre an idiot if you think Oscar isn't a top 10 p4p of the 90's. And you got no business at this forum, go to NSB instead! Tosser...:nonono:

I feel the same way about you. Your agenda is so transparent that it's funny.

pacquia0
04-20-2011, 04:59 PM
Whitaker was not a runner. But you would have to actually know something about boxing to know that.

I never said he was. If De La Hoya is classed as a runner on this forum then so is Whitaker.

IronDanHamza
04-20-2011, 05:03 PM
I never said he was. If De La Hoya is classed as a runner on this forum then so is Whitaker.

No one is classing Oscar as a runner.

However, he did run in the second half of the Trinidad fight. Which was pretty f*cking annoying, really.

Whitaker has never done what Oscar did in the Tito fight. Never.

RubenSonny
04-20-2011, 05:08 PM
I never said he was. If De La Hoya is classed as a runner on this forum then so is Whitaker.

I wouldn't say I class Oscar as a runner just that he ran against Tito and thats undeniable.

Pastrano
04-20-2011, 05:25 PM
No one is classing Oscar as a runner.

However, he did run in the second half of the Trinidad fight. Which was pretty f*cking annoying, really.

Whitaker has never done what Oscar did in the Tito fight. Never.

Second HALF?! You mean the last QUARTER?

IronDanHamza
04-20-2011, 05:33 PM
Second HALF?! You mean the last QUARTER?

2nd half to last quarter, yes.

Fact is, he ran from an extended period of the fight, which was annoying as hell considering this was such an anticipated fight. Which alot of people see as unforgiveable.

I think Oscar won. Just feel he was being an absolute b*tch in the process. Thus wasn't bothered with the result regardless to the fact I think Oscar won.

Pastrano
04-20-2011, 05:50 PM
2nd half to last quarter, yes.

Fact is, he ran from an extended period of the fight, which was annoying as hell considering this was such an anticipated fight. Which alot of people see as unforgiveable.

I think Oscar won. Just feel he was being an absolute b*tch in the process. Thus wasn't bothered with the result regardless to the fact I think Oscar won.

I think he didn't wanna risk it in the closing rounds, tiring and then getting nailed with a Trinidad bomb. He knew what he was up against.