Who will go down with a greater legacy, Pacquiao or Pernell Whitaker??

[Tiozzo]

I pick Whitaker based on his resume, unique talent and skills. There has never been anybody like Pernell before or after. He was sensational. His only decisive loss was to Trinidad when he was well passed his best.

We must not forget Pacquiao has been a little brawler for most of his career. If you took his straight left on which he was relying like a blind man on his dog, you took away his biggest asset. Morales and Marquez beat him up, made him look bad. And he was ko'ed in the past. Has 3 losses. Should have at least 4. He has learnt to box only in his last couple of fights.

Who has ever knocked out or dominated Sweet pea ?

[BennyST]

Let’s examine both fighter’s career resume



Pernell Whitaker
46-4-1-1 (17 kos)
World titles:
Undisputed lightweight champ ( IBF,WBA, WBC)
IBF Light Welterweight Champion
WBC Welterweight Champion
WBA Light Middleweight Champion

Notable wins:
Greg Haugen
Azumah Nelson
Buddy Mcgirt
Rafael Pineda
Jorge Paez
Jose Ramirez

1989 Ring Magazine Fighter of the Year


Manny Pacquiao
(51-3-2) 38 kos

Major Titles won
WBC World flyweight champion
IBF World super bantamweight champion
WBC World super featherweight champion
WBC World lightweight champion
WBO World welterweight champion

Ring titles:
World featherweight champion
World super featherweight champion
World light welterweight champion

Notable wins:
Barerra
Morales
Marquez
Hatton
DeLa Hoya
Cotto

2006, 2008 and 2009 Ring Magazine Fighter of the Year

-----------------------------------------------

Pac takes it..

What about Roger Mayweather, Julio Cesar Vasquez and Julio Cesar Chavez? Whether you like or not, Whitaker beat Chavez. It was simply politics and money that kept it from him. It was as obvious a win as any Pac has had. If you don't count that as a win for Whitaker then you certainly can't call Marquez a victory for Pac. Whitaker beat Chavez ten times more clearly than Pac ever 'beat' Marquez, if you can call it 'beating' him.

You cannot just look at a record and say "He beat this guy and that guy was a draw" even though it's very obvious to everyone that it wasn't like that at all. You have to understand the fights, the times, the ridiculous nature of boxing sometimes. You can't just look at paper and say "These are the only opponents he beat because it says a draw"

If you want to look at it that way, then you have to take into account losses. For Pac, he was knocked out twice by absolute nobodies (if you are going to ignore the fact Whitaker beat Chavez you can't bring any excuses up for Pac losing) along with losing to a dead Morales and drawing to Sanchez who was minute in comparison to Pac.

I'm sure lots of people will also say "Oscar lost to Pac but beat Whitaker!" See, this is where most just can't understand what boxing entails. Some things are great on a record and some things aren't. If I was to list Pac's greatest wins, Oscar would not be on there. At that time he was no better than a solid journeyman. His name though makes it look good. That is what has happened, in my opinion, with quite a lot of Pac's biggest wins. Looks great on paper, but, when you understand the whole situation better then it starts to look a bit weaker.

Oscar=great name, not so great win.
Morales=great name, not so great win.
Hatton=good name, ok win.
Cotto=good name, great win.
Barrera=great name, greatest win.
Marquez=great name, debatable draw and win.

You know, it makes no difference though. Pac is great (an ATG), but, in my opinion, he has fought in a time when things just weren't that hard. 140? He fought what has probably been the weakest link in that title chain in some years now. 147? There are just not that many good fighters comparable to previous 147 eras. In fact, I'd go so far to say they suck ass in comparison. 135? Pac didn't stay there. 130? Some interesting losses and wins. 126? His greatest win and draw etc etc etc.

No doubt someone will come back and say that that is all biased rubbish though and Whitaker did nothing to compare. I'm not going to argue. I'm just going to say they are not nearly as far apart as people think, if only they would dig into some more understanding of what they're talking about.

[KickAzz]

Vote and Explain your choice.

my pick: pacquiao.

reason: people love punchers

[BennyST]

It's Pacquaio, and it isn't really that close either. If you want to argue that Pernell would have beaten Manny head to head then that is a perfectly legitimate arguement to make. If you are comparing them based on achievements than it isn't even close, Manny is a modern Henry Armstrong or Harry Greb, a guy so talented that he dominates weight class after weight class.

He hasn't dominated weight class after weight class though (in fact, he hasn't dominated one single weight class in his whole career) and that is one of the problems of all this. He has fought one or two guys in each division, usually picked out for him very nicely.

People say Mayweather cherry picks his opponents (I don't disagree) but then that Pac doesn't? Come on people, open your ****ing eyes. Hatton? Oscar? Cotto? Diaz? Clottey?

Beforehand, the large majority of experts picked each fight exactly as it played out, apart from Oscar simply because few people understood the atrocious form that he was coming into the ring in, apart from Roach who knew every little bit of how bad Oscar was going to be and little a threat he posed.

Wake up!

[IMDAZED]

Pernell Whitaker is the best fighter since the Leonard/Duran era.

[BennyST]

Pernell Whitaker is the best fighter since the Leonard/Duran era.

Oscar beet Whitaker but losses to Pakeeow by TKO!!!!!!LAMMMMOOOO pwnpwn!!!1

Whitaker would only get draws wit best Mexicanos of his era and Pakeeow dominated all the Mexican greats who were much better and in their primes! pwn LAMO!

Pakyiaow rulez dood! He pwned Hatton and Munee Mai nearly got beets by him

Packiow GOAT, numero uno, legendo di filipino, unecas de vayas!

[Benny Leonard]

He hasn't dominated weight class after weight class though (in fact, he hasn't dominated one single weight class in his whole career) and that is one of the problems of all this. He has fought one or two guys in each division, usually picked out for him very nicely.

People say Mayweather cherry picks his opponents (I don't disagree) but then that Pac doesn't? Come on people, open your ****ing eyes. Hatton? Oscar? Cotto? Diaz? Clottey?

Beforehand, the large majority of experts picked each fight exactly as it played out, apart from Oscar simply because few people understood the atrocious form that he was coming into the ring in, apart from Roach who knew every little bit of how bad Oscar was going to be and little a threat he posed.

Wake up!

WOW, somebody else mentions it. Not surprising, A "Benny"

I talked about it before with Pac and Floyd a while back with all this talk about who is better and to settle a point, I wondered who was better at each division.

Could Floyd beat more ATG in each division he fought than Pac in the divisions he fought?

But the point was really overall with any fighter.

Floyd and Pac for example are lucky they are in this current WW era because NEITHER are beating the likes of SRR and Tommy Hearns. Imagine only one belt and Hearns had it?

Roach is even on record saying Duran beats Pac. I think Floyd has a better chance at Duran than Pac does.

For Whitaker and Pac, pick one division that you would say they are at their best and tell me which one is favored over ATG more?
That's what I want to know from people....let alone who you think wins between the two.

[Walterson]

What about Roger Mayweather, Julio Cesar Vasquez and Julio Cesar Chavez? Whether you like or not, Whitaker beat Chavez. It was simply politics and money that kept it from him. It was as obvious a win as any Pac has had. If you don't count that as a win for Whitaker then you certainly can't call Marquez a victory for Pac. Whitaker beat Chavez ten times more clearly than Pac ever 'beat' Marquez, if you can call it 'beating' him.

You cannot just look at a record and say "He beat this guy and that guy was a draw" even though it's very obvious to everyone that it wasn't like that at all. You have to understand the fights, the times, the ridiculous nature of boxing sometimes. You can't just look at paper and say "These are the only opponents he beat because it says a draw"

If you want to look at it that way, then you have to take into account losses. For Pac, he was knocked out twice by absolute nobodies (if you are going to ignore the fact Whitaker beat Chavez you can't bring any excuses up for Pac losing) along with losing to a dead Morales and drawing to Sanchez who was minute in comparison to Pac.

I'm sure lots of people will also say "Oscar lost to Pac but beat Whitaker!" See, this is where most just can't understand what boxing entails. Some things are great on a record and some things aren't. If I was to list Pac's greatest wins, Oscar would not be on there. At that time he was no better than a solid journeyman. His name though makes it look good. That is what has happened, in my opinion, with quite a lot of Pac's biggest wins. Looks great on paper, but, when you understand the whole situation better then it starts to look a bit weaker.

Oscar=great name, not so great win.
Morales=great name, not so great win.
Hatton=good name, ok win.
Cotto=good name, great win.
Barrera=great name, greatest win.
Marquez=great name, debatable draw and win.

You know, it makes no difference though. Pac is great (an ATG), but, in my opinion, he has fought in a time when things just weren't that hard. 140? He fought what has probably been the weakest link in that title chain in some years now. 147? There are just not that many good fighters comparable to previous 147 eras. In fact, I'd go so far to say they suck ass in comparison. 135? Pac didn't stay there. 130? Some interesting losses and wins. 126? His greatest win and draw etc etc etc.

No doubt someone will come back and say that that is all biased rubbish though and Whitaker did nothing to compare. I'm not going to argue. I'm just going to say they are not nearly as far apart as people think, if only they would dig into some more understanding of what they're talking about.

Nice post man!!