Who do you rank higher as an ATG Pernell Whitaker or Bernard Hopkins?

[bojangles1987]

Whitaker pretty clearly.

[SplitSecond]

it's clearly whitaker, you can say hop isn't far behind, but noway you can put him ahead of whitaker

whitaker by a good margin

[Steak]

So if they have the same amount of wins over good competition at a certain weight class, in your opinion, then how is one so much better than the other, by "landslide"?

I thought a lot of fighters beat another fighter, but that doesn't mean anything. I thought Pernell beat Chavez, but that doesn't mean anything. All boxing experts and journalists including Ronnie Nathanielsz, gave Marquez-Pacquiao II to Marquez, but that doesn't mean anything[I had Marquez over Pacquiao as well]. Who you thought should have won vs who got the win.

If you lose a bet in the casino, you have to pay up. You're not gonna say, i'm not paying up cause I thought he was robbed. Pernell was robbed of a win, that's really sad, robberies are sad. But Pernell didn't get the win.

I never said it was a ****ing landslide, but Im actually making points in my argument wheras your argument for Hopkins being greater consisted of Hopkins' 20 title defenses, which Ive already shown doesnt mean anything since all that matters is who you beat in those defenses. Hopkins' whole argument of being greater because of his 20 'defenses' is out the window since Whitaker beat just as much top competition at Lightweight as Hopkins did at Middleweight, not to mention that Whitaker's wins at Lightweight were better than Hopkins' wins at Middleweight. In quality Whitaker is ahead, and in quantity theyre even.

And there is a gargantuam difference between a fight like Pacquiao-Marquez 2, which was actually debatable for either man, and a very obvious fight like Whitaker-Chavez where everyone universally agrees that Whitaker deserved the win.


If you honestly think that Whitaker doesnt deserve credit for a win over Chavez, then your reasoning is flawed, biased, and/or plain stupid, and theres no point in continuing this conversation.

[-Kev-]

I never said it was a ****ing landslide, but Im actually making points in my argument wheras your argument for Hopkins being greater consisted of Hopkins' 20 title defenses, which Ive already shown doesnt mean anything since all that matters is who you beat in those defenses. Hopkins' whole argument of being greater because of his 20 'defenses' is out the window since Whitaker beat just as much top competition at Lightweight as Hopkins did at Middleweight, not to mention that Whitaker's wins at Lightweight were better than Hopkins' wins at Middleweight. In quality Whitaker is ahead, and in quantity theyre even.

And there is a gargantuam difference between a fight like Pacquiao-Marquez 2, which was actually debatable for either man, and a very obvious fight like Whitaker-Chavez where everyone universally agrees that Whitaker deserved the win.


If you honestly think that Whitaker doesnt deserve credit for a win over Chavez, then your reasoning is flawed, biased, and/or plain stupid, and theres no point in continuing this conversation.

Okay no problem. Sorry I didn't go along with the shoulda woulda coulda resume.

[bojangles1987]

Okay no problem. Sorry I didn't go along with the shoulda woulda coulda resume.

There's a big difference between Hopkins vs. Taylor, where you can argue for either man, and Whitaker vs. Chavez, where there is no argument for Chavez winning. That's the point as to why you should count the Chavez fight for Whitaker. He won, there's no question.

[Jim Jeffries]

Wow, are there seriously people that think Whitaker didn't clearly beat Chavez?

I'd give Whitaker the edge in boxing ability and the tendency is to give Hopkins the edge in longevity, except that he really didn't beat anyone of note until less than a decade ago. Which is why he was about a 6 to 1 underdog when he fought Tito.

[LeG00N]

sweet pea..

[$tate of Mind]

The vote is really close. This has been a good discussion fellas. For Whitaker to accomplish what he did with very little power (only 17 career KO's) is amazing. Pernell was the epitome of a "boxer".

[IronDanHamza]

Very very very suprised at the poll.

Can't believe Hopkins has more votes than Pernell Whitaker.

It's quite clearly Pernell.

[IronDanHamza]

dude, the 80s and 90s were a great time to be a boxing fan...ppvs werent crazy and if they did have them, everyone here in the US had an illegal box so you can just keep watching anyways

boxers fought 3-4 times a year...you had boxing on national networks..i remember having free boxing on two of the major channels on Saturday afternoons...then there was a cable channel here called the USA Network...it was THREE HOURS of boxing every week...that's when i saw guys like Hopkins, Julian JAckson, Norris, Roy, Toney, Pernell...then you had showtime and HBO...i wish we could get back to that

Don't we all, Bro. Don't we all.