Who has the better resume Pernell Whitaker or Manny Pacquiao?

[IronDanHamza]

Woah there turbo, slow it down a notch.

Let me remind you what you said:



That is saying that the Morales that beat Pac was no longer every bit as good of a fighter as he ever was. That's completely untrue. Pac was the reason he faded in the first place. Plus, Morales basically won because Pacquiao was severely cut early and lost his mind about strategy as soon as it happened. This was caused by a headbutt and Pacquiao had blood in his eye for over half of the fight, so the result was legit but somewhat controversial.

Not giving Manny credit for that win shows an agenda bro. I can't respect that.

Every post you provide your credibility just gets lower and lower.

[Mr. Invincible]

Floyd has fought much better competition from 130-154 his entire career than Vitali has fought at HW his entire career would you not agree? BTW I like the Klitschko bros

De La Hoya P4P might be better skill wise than any HW that Vitaly has fought.

Delahoya at that point was bigger than Floyd but should not have been in a split decision with him. By that time, Oscar was far from his best.

Yes I agree that Floyd's competition has been better as of late but pre Gatti and Gatti, not so much. Not to say Vitali definitely takes this debate but I favor him here.

Oh, and I think Lennox was better overall that Oscar.

[Mr. Invincible]

What does book smarts have to do with Ring IQ? Pacquiao didn't even graduate elementary school and won fighter of the decade.

Because I said he's the smartest boxer ever. I didn't say he has the highest ring IQ even though I do think he ranks up there in that department as well.

[daggum]

who cares if he was 28 years old. He was fighting since 1993 & the fights with Barrera weren't his only wars....

Dude...any boxing fan will tell you that Morales was washed up at the time he fought Pac the 2nd time. Also he was coming off a lopsided ass whooping at the hands of Zahir Raheem.

morales is a world champ right now so how can he be washed up? are you implying world champs can cherry pick soft opponents and win a belt against bums?

[Dirk Diggler UK]

I'm waiting on your reply to my previous question funny man.

I dont even know what your question is. You're so ******ed that you're trying to merge IQ with ring IQ.

[Atreyu Khalil]

Woah there turbo, slow it down a notch.

Let me remind you what you said:


That is saying that the Morales that beat Pac was no longer every bit as good of a fighter as he ever was. That's completely untrue. Pac was the reason he faded in the first place. Plus, Morales basically won because Pacquiao was severely cut early and lost his mind about strategy as soon as it happened. This was caused by a headbutt and Pacquiao had blood in his eye for over half of the fight, so the result was legit but somewhat controversial.

Not giving Manny credit for that win shows an agenda bro. I can't respect that.

No champ you are wrong. Morales was washed up when he beat Pacquiao and Pacquiao used excuses about gloves, shoes, blood tests as the reason he lost. Then Raheem outboxed a washed up Morales, then Pac fought a washed up Morales back to back then Morales lost to C Class David Diaz. Everyone knows Morales was washed up when he outboxed Pac.

So Pac lost because of the cut not because Morales was boxing his ears off? Every fighter who gets cut only loses because of the cut?

Its no agenda man at all, but to say that Pac beat a PRIME Morales is absurd man.

[Atreyu Khalil]

morales is a world champ right now so how can he be washed up? are you implying world champs can cherry pick soft opponents and win a belt against bums?

So was Morales washed up in his 2nd fight vs Pac yes or no?

[daggum]

So was Morales washed up in his 2nd fight vs Pac yes or no?

he can't be washed up! he's champion of the entire world right now!

[JAB5239]

dude how old are u? ive debated many of the ppl uve debated in this thread, and i can unconditionally say all of them obviously know more about boxing and make more sense than u. in fact, im almost positive that u started watching boxing within the last 5 years or so. there can be no other explanation for the stupidity uve posted in this thread.

Lol, I knew we could find common ground and agree on something!

[Brother Jay]

No champ you are wrong. Morales was washed up when he beat Pacquiao and Pacquiao used excuses about gloves, shoes, blood tests as the reason he lost. Then Raheem outboxed a washed up Morales, then Pac fought a washed up Morales back to back then Morales lost to C Class David Diaz. Everyone knows Morales was washed up when he outboxed Pac.

So Pac lost because of the cut not because Morales was boxing his ears off? Every fighter who gets cut only loses because of the cut?

Its no agenda man at all, but to say that Pac beat a PRIME Morales is absurd man.

I wrote it before and I'll write it again:

Morales wasn't SHlT above SBW. He didn't do well against any world class fighter except for Manny Pacquiao.

I believe that Morales would have had a great chance against Barrera and Pacquiao if they had faced him at SBW.

Hell ... Morales beat Junior Jones at SBW .. the man that embarrassed Barrera twice and had him considering retirement. Morales also has his one win over Barrera at SBW. After leaving SBW the only noteworthy win Morales has in his career comes over Pacquiao ... and we all know that Pacquiao was required to give a clean sample of blood without notice for that match. Manny came in looking weak and bewildered.

I have always found it amusing how certain fans hail Morales and Barrera as elite fighters. The only win they have over a world-class fighter between them is Morales' win over Pacquiao.

Stop the madness. Barrera and Morales gave us three great fights, but they weren't world class. Barrera could never beat anyone better than Morales and Morales bests days and wins were at SBW.

Fans on this site REALLY NEED to learn that no matter how exciting a fight is, its value as it pertains to legacy is in the rank and the condition of the fighters.

If you watch Morales' fights, you'll see that he lays it out on the line in EVERY fight, like most Mexicans. Same with Barrera.

However, take away Morales' win over Pacquiao and Barrera's win over Morales and you have two tough, blood and guts boxers who haven't accomplished a whole lot.

Yet fans on this site want these men to be seen as ELITE or ATG.

Based on what?

One win does not define a career for an ELITE or ATG.

By that way of thinking, anyone with an upset is an ATG.

That's stupid and irresponsible reasoning.

Let boxers do what they are supposed to: WIN

Judge them by the merits, not by the amount of blood they are willing to bleed in the ring.

Stop trying to make their wins against opponents not ranked #1, 2 or 3 into more than they were.

Boxing is about besting world champions and the best available top ranked foe in the ring.

Not every boxer follows this maxim, and therefore cannot be considered for greatness.

Now some of you more desperate posters wish to engage in games of semantics and have abandoned stating that certain fighters are ATGs .. and now instead choose to claim that they are "great fighters" .. so to seem as if the terms are interchangeable.

They are not.

Anyone can put on a great fight. This we should all know. Look at Mickey Ward. He isn't great at all but he sure gave us three great fights against Gatti!

Yet putting on a great show against a man who himself isn't great doesn't lead one to greatness. Without rank, there IS NO GLORY!

If it were any other way, there would be no need to call ANYONE champion because the 10th ranked fighter could simply have bloody slugfests with the 11th, 12th & 13th ranked fighters and could conceivably be seen as THE BEST FOR HIS EFFORTS, BUT NOT FOR WHAT HE HAS ACTUALLY ACCOMPLISHED ..WHICH WOULD BE NOTHING OF NOTE.

Which brings us back to Manny Pacquiao creating a so-called ATG legacy for himself at welterweight by fighting 5th ranked fighters!

SHlT .. 5th might as well be 10th in the scheme of things because it certainly IS NOT 1ST, 2ND OR 3RD!! I don't care how "close" an opponent is ranked to the top three spots: If he isn't in the top three, he's basically a tune up .. and tune ups CARRY ABSOLUTELY NO LEGACY VALUE WHATSOEVER!

The only argument available in Pacquiao's defense is that his resume is stronger for the names it carries. However those who make that argument ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to discuss the fact that those names were all ranked 5th or worse when Pacquiao became willing to fight them at WW with the exception of Cotto who was 4th.

You predicate your entire case on passed-prime names to hail Pacquiao as greater than a masterboxer like Whitaker?

That weak. Its pathetic, and it shows that certain people would rather live with comfortable lies than uncomfortable truths just to support a boxer that they've probably never met, and probably never will.

I believe that is the very definition of fanatic.

And I bet some of you will take that as a compliment.