-
-
Whitaker should 100% have had the win over Chavez Sr, and you could argue that he really beat a prime Oscar as well, even though Whitaker himself was past his prime.
Pernell was also robbed the first fight against Ramirez as well.
People really don't remember how great Pernell Whitaker was.
So, that's 3 possible fights he arguably won with bad judging. Marquez, though very different fighters and Pernell is better of course, is sort of like the Pernell Whitaker of this era. Marquez arguably beat Pacquiao all 3 times, Norwood, and John.Comment
-
whats funny is that there is no way Whitaker has a better resume than Pacquiao.Comment
-
Starting at their common weights, Whitaker certainly blows him away.
Pea unified at 35; Pac beat David Diaz.
Pac beat Hatton while Pea beat Pineda. Neither stayed long. Edge Pac there in terms of resume.
At 47, Pea kills him. McGirt twice (and Buddy was better by leaps and bounds than anyone Pac has fought at Welter) and a catchweight defense over Chavez win it. he started to lag on the back end of his reign (starting around 96) but from 93-95, he was smoking.
At 54, Vazquez was on a big roll with wins over Castillejo and Wright. Pac beat Marg at a Catch. Advantage Pea.
Pac has a bunch of other classes to his credit though. He had a strong run at 30 but also a loss to Morales. At 26, he beat Barrera and drew with Marquez. Ledwaba was a good win at 22 but he didn't do anything else there and, while the title is nice at 112, he wasn't really very good yet. he won that on raw talent and a hammer in his hands.
In terms of raw, on paper, resume by names, they aren't miles apart but Whitaker not losing more than a handful of rounds for close to a decade, against steady and strong opposition, has to weigh in as well. he also had a the sort of rough shod divisional clean out Pac has never had.
The opinion there that Whitaker should be seen as a heavy favorite to box Pac's ears off counts too (for me). I'd favor Pea.Comment
Tweet
Comment