Who has the better resume Pernell Whitaker or Manny Pacquiao?

[Atreyu Khalil]

Pac is considered the superior fighter because of the superior resume.

Many fans and pundits still believe JMM is the better fighter technically. Whitaker is a better fighter than JMM. I don't even believe Pac thinks he has better boxing skills than JMM which is why he wants to fight him a a 4th time to prove he can really beat him.

[Sweet Pea 50]

No comment......

[Atreyu Khalil]

Whitaker is more skilled than Pac and would beat Pac at any weight

THIS^^^.....Pac was getting outboxed by a washed up Morales & most recently a 38 year old lightweight Marquez. Sweat Pea would have confused the hell out of Pac.

[kiaba360]

I like to read these types of threads because it usually consists of knowledgeable posters who were actually around when said fighters (Whitaker) were fighting, and then you have other posters who don't know enough to even formulate a legitimate opinion, and then it turns into a dick-riding session.

[hugh grant]

Many fans and pundits still believe JMM is the better fighter technically. Whitaker is a better fighter than JMM. I don't even believe Pac thinks he has better boxing skills than JMM which is why he wants to fight him a a 4th time to prove he can really beat him.

Yes Pac is a better fighter than JMM i agree, though its a bad style match up for Pac.

[Brother Jay]

The problem with threads like this is that today's fans, largely Pacquiao fans, are uneducated.

If we go by how some fans reason, Pacquiao indeed does have a great chance of being top 20.

Why?

Because some fans weigh the legacy of a fighter by how much they enjoyed watching them fight. In fact, that may be one of most important criteria in today's fans minds when weighing such value.

Its ridiculous.

Going by that same reasoning, both Gatti and Ward should be top 50. Barrera and Morales should be top 50. Corrales and Castillo should be top 50.

A legacy is NOT measured by how enjoyable a boxer's fights were. I cannot stress this enough.

Then you have those who seek to validate a legacy's high position by pointing out the names on the resume WITHOUT EVER discussing the rank or status of those so-called star-powered names. That in itself is a deceptive practice.

Could Holmes count his win over Ali as tremendous win? No, because the world knew the condition that Ali was in at that point. Ali was still Ali, but he was no longer the lion he once was.

Could Glenn Johnson count his win over RJJ as a tremendous win? No, because the world saw that something was very different in the first fight with Tarver, let alone the rematch where RJJ was KTFO. RJJ was still RJJ, but he was no longer the lion he once was.

Attempting to use heavily promoted "names" in place of fighting champions and #1, 2 & 3 ranked fighters and then trying to defend it by claiming that the fighter has a "great resume" is not only deceptive, its also desperate.

I have written before that I like to watch Manny Pacquiao box. He's exciting. He comes to fight and he puts on a good show.

That said, no one can make his career more than it was. No one was calling Pacquiao the best ANYTHING before his foray into the WW division. And its at that point when Pacquiao began ROUTINELY using catchweights and targeting fighters who had BIG NAMES but LITTLE RANK.

Hugh Grant only continues down his road of foolishness because he REFUSES to acknowledge that since fighting Diaz, Manny Pacquiao fought 5 fighters ranked 4th or lower and 1 fighter ranked 4th. That is NOT building a ATG legacy. That's avoiding the #1 and #2s in favor of fighting 4th and 5ths and hoping historians won't notice.

To compare Pacquiao, whose biggest wins come over Barrera and Morales, to P4P#1 Pernell Whitaker is IMO a fool's errand. Whitaker EARNED his spot at the top. Pacquiao was only considered for top position once Mayweather left boxing and by DEFAULT he was brought in to fill the void.

What makes this even more troubling is that the boxing brass and writers attempted to do this at WW: Manny Pacquiao's weakest and least accomplished division. Had they pulled this when Manny was fighting at FW or SFW the effort might have has a modicum of legitimacy to it.

However the idea that suggests that Manny Pacquiao's achievements at WW and/or jrMW were great or significant is laughable. There simply isn't any glory in fighting 5th ranked losers who have just recently been bumped out of the top spots in a division.

Hell .. Margarito wasn't ever a top fighter at jrMW!

So to call Pacquiao an ATG for beating Barrera and Morales and having a draw and 2 HIGHLY DISPUTED WINS against the man that the world now holds in higher regard, JMM, is just an attempt by desperate fans and writers to have Pacquiao go out seeming like he was all about the big challenges when he was everything but.

You must beat the best to be the best. Pacquiao fought the 5th best and hoped that because he was "oh so small" that the world would say "Aww come on man .. the guy is soooooo little and he's beating these big guys. I don't care what rank they are. Manny is the best".

That is the reasoning of a peasant-minded fan. One that throws out reasoning in favor of pure emotion and fandom. Legacies aren't measured in such ways.

The "thrill" factor doesn't enhance the value of a fight. Rank is the most important measure of an opponent, not his perceived threat by the fans. If perceived threat mattered, Froch would have beaten Ward. Instead he was completely dominated. All perceived threat does is add to anticipation. THAT'S ALL.

Whitaker was a great boxer and a defensive phenom. He was P4P#1 and the one of the best boxers of his era.

If Pacquiao ever had a chance to be compared to Whitaker, it would only be because Whitaker became drug related and his career never saw him reach his very best. Same scenario with Tyson.

We can't say that about Pacquiao. Not because he's never taken drugs, but only because he has managed to avoid taking USADA PED tests for 3 years .. even against opponents who aren't Mayweather.

[Atreyu Khalil]

The problem with threads like this is that today's fans, largely Pacquiao fans, are uneducated.

If we go by how some fans reason, Pacquiao indeed does have a great chance of being top 20.

Why?

Because some fans weigh the legacy of a fighter by how much they enjoyed watching them fight. In fact, that may be one of most important criteria in today's fans minds when weighing such value.

Its ridiculous.

Going by that same reasoning, both Gatti and Ward should be top 50. Barrera and Morales should be top 50. Corrales and Castillo should be top 50.

A legacy is NOT measured by how enjoyable a boxer's fights were. I cannot stress this enough.

Then you have those who seek to validate a legacy's high position by pointing out the names on the resume WITHOUT EVER discussing the rank or status of those so-called star-powered names. That in itself is a deceptive practice.

Could Holmes count his win over Ali as tremendous win? No, because the world knew the condition that Ali was in at that point. Ali was still Ali, but he was no longer the lion he once was.

Could Glenn Johnson count his win over RJJ as a tremendous win? No, because the world saw that something was very different in the first fight with Tarver, let alone the rematch where RJJ was KTFO. RJJ was still RJJ, but he was no longer the lion he once was.

Attempting to use heavily promoted "names" in place of fighting champions and #1, 2 & 3 ranked fighters and then trying to defend it by claiming that the fighter has a "great resume" is not only deceptive, its also desperate.

I have written before that I like to watch Manny Pacquiao box. He's exciting. He comes to fight and he puts on a good show.

That said, no one can make his career more than it was. No one was calling Pacquiao the best ANYTHING before his foray into the WW division. And its at that point when Pacquiao began ROUTINELY using catchweights and targeting fighters who had BIG NAMES but LITTLE RANK.

Hugh Grant only continues down his road of foolishness because he REFUSES to acknowledge that since fighting Diaz, Manny Pacquiao fought 5 fighters ranked 4th or lower and 1 fighter ranked 4th. That is NOT building a ATG legacy. That's avoiding the #1 and #2s in favor of fighting 4th and 5ths and hoping historians won't notice.

To compare Pacquiao, whose biggest wins come over Barrera and Morales, to P4P#1 Pernell Whitaker is IMO a fool's errand. Whitaker EARNED his spot at the top. Pacquiao was only considered for top position once Mayweather left boxing and by DEFAULT he was brought in to fill the void.

What makes this even more troubling is that the boxing brass and writers attempted to do this at WW: Manny Pacquiao's weakest and least accomplished division. Had they pulled this when Manny was fighting at FW or SFW the effort might have has a modicum of legitimacy to it.

However the idea that suggests that Manny Pacquiao's achievements at WW and/or jrMW were great or significant is laughable. There simply isn't any glory in fighting 5th ranked losers who have just recently been bumped out of the top spots in a division.

Hell .. Margarito wasn't ever a top fighter at jrMW!

So to call Pacquiao an ATG for beating Barrera and Morales and having a draw and 2 HIGHLY DISPUTED WINS against the man that the world now holds in higher regard, JMM, is just an attempt by desperate fans and writers to have Pacquiao go out seeming like he was all about the big challenges when he was everything but.

You must beat the best to be the best. Pacquiao fought the 5th best and hoped that because he was "oh so small" that the world would say "Aww come on man .. the guy is soooooo little and he's beating these big guys. I don't care what rank they are. Manny is the best".

That is the reasoning of a peasant-minded fan. One that throws out reasoning in favor of pure emotion and fandom. Legacies aren't measured in such ways.

The "thrill" factor doesn't enhance the value of a fight. Rank is the most important measure of an opponent, not his perceived threat by the fans. If perceived threat mattered, Froch would have beaten Ward. Instead he was completely dominated. All perceived threat does is add to anticipation. THAT'S ALL.

Whitaker was a great boxer and a defensive phenom. He was P4P#1 and the one of the best boxers of his era.

If Pacquiao ever had a chance to be compared to Whitaker, it would only be because Whitaker became drug related and his career never saw him reach his very best. Same scenario with Tyson.

We can't say that about Pacquiao. Not because he's never taken drugs, but only because he has managed to avoid taking USADA PED tests for 3 years .. even against opponents who aren't Mayweather.

/thread

[junior gong]

The problem with threads like this is that today's fans, largely Pacquiao fans, are uneducated.

If we go by how some fans reason, Pacquiao indeed does have a great chance of being top 20.

Why?

Because some fans weigh the legacy of a fighter by how much they enjoyed watching them fight. In fact, that may be one of most important criteria in today's fans minds when weighing such value.

Its ridiculous.

Going by that same reasoning, both Gatti and Ward should be top 50. Barrera and Morales should be top 50. Corrales and Castillo should be top 50.

A legacy is NOT measured by how enjoyable a boxer's fights were. I cannot stress this enough.

Then you have those who seek to validate a legacy's high position by pointing out the names on the resume WITHOUT EVER discussing the rank or status of those so-called star-powered names. That in itself is a deceptive practice.

Could Holmes count his win over Ali as tremendous win? No, because the world knew the condition that Ali was in at that point. Ali was still Ali, but he was no longer the lion he once was.

Could Glenn Johnson count his win over RJJ as a tremendous win? No, because the world saw that something was very different in the first fight with Tarver, let alone the rematch where RJJ was KTFO. RJJ was still RJJ, but he was no longer the lion he once was.

Attempting to use heavily promoted "names" in place of fighting champions and #1, 2 & 3 ranked fighters and then trying to defend it by claiming that the fighter has a "great resume" is not only deceptive, its also desperate.

I have written before that I like to watch Manny Pacquiao box. He's exciting. He comes to fight and he puts on a good show.

That said, no one can make his career more than it was. No one was calling Pacquiao the best ANYTHING before his foray into the WW division. And its at that point when Pacquiao began ROUTINELY using catchweights and targeting fighters who had BIG NAMES but LITTLE RANK.

Hugh Grant only continues down his road of foolishness because he REFUSES to acknowledge that since fighting Diaz, Manny Pacquiao fought 5 fighters ranked 4th or lower and 1 fighter ranked 4th. That is NOT building a ATG legacy. That's avoiding the #1 and #2s in favor of fighting 4th and 5ths and hoping historians won't notice.

To compare Pacquiao, whose biggest wins come over Barrera and Morales, to P4P#1 Pernell Whitaker is IMO a fool's errand. Whitaker EARNED his spot at the top. Pacquiao was only considered for top position once Mayweather left boxing and by DEFAULT he was brought in to fill the void.

What makes this even more troubling is that the boxing brass and writers attempted to do this at WW: Manny Pacquiao's weakest and least accomplished division. Had they pulled this when Manny was fighting at FW or SFW the effort might have has a modicum of legitimacy to it.

However the idea that suggests that Manny Pacquiao's achievements at WW and/or jrMW were great or significant is laughable. There simply isn't any glory in fighting 5th ranked losers who have just recently been bumped out of the top spots in a division.

Hell .. Margarito wasn't ever a top fighter at jrMW!

So to call Pacquiao an ATG for beating Barrera and Morales and having a draw and 2 HIGHLY DISPUTED WINS against the man that the world now holds in higher regard, JMM, is just an attempt by desperate fans and writers to have Pacquiao go out seeming like he was all about the big challenges when he was everything but.

You must beat the best to be the best. Pacquiao fought the 5th best and hoped that because he was "oh so small" that the world would say "Aww come on man .. the guy is soooooo little and he's beating these big guys. I don't care what rank they are. Manny is the best".

That is the reasoning of a peasant-minded fan. One that throws out reasoning in favor of pure emotion and fandom. Legacies aren't measured in such ways.

The "thrill" factor doesn't enhance the value of a fight. Rank is the most important measure of an opponent, not his perceived threat by the fans. If perceived threat mattered, Froch would have beaten Ward. Instead he was completely dominated. All perceived threat does is add to anticipation. THAT'S ALL.

Whitaker was a great boxer and a defensive phenom. He was P4P#1 and the one of the best boxers of his era.

If Pacquiao ever had a chance to be compared to Whitaker, it would only be because Whitaker became drug related and his career never saw him reach his very best. Same scenario with Tyson.

We can't say that about Pacquiao. Not because he's never taken drugs, but only because he has managed to avoid taking USADA PED tests for 3 years .. even against opponents who aren't Mayweather.

This pearler from the guy who thinks winning a bronze medal makes you the Olympic champion.

The truth is that the overwhelming majority of fans of one fighter(Floyd fans especially, but Pac fans,Klit fans etc.) dont actually know very much about the sport at all. There are very few exceptions.

[GoogleMe]

Pernell by a wide margin.

[Teri]

This pearler from the guy who thinks winning a bronze medal makes you the Olympic champion.

The truth is that the overwhelming majority of fans of one fighter(Floyd fans especially, but Pac fans,Klit fans etc.) dont actually know very much about the sport at all. There are very few exceptions.

Floyd was robbed in the olympics