Who has the better resume Pernell Whitaker or Manny Pacquiao?

[junior gong]

He wasn't truly a gold medal winner. He was robbed for a chance to fight for the Gold medal. This isn't Roy Jones Seoul.

........Shhhh.

[Brother Jay]

It will be for the posters who will take the advice and from now on skip your long winded garbage posts.

You should just type out your posts in your native language and have google translate it for you. It wouldn't be any worse than what you already write.

I know you people don't like FACTS. That's very clear. So I already knew coming in that you'd hate me.

I'll have to learn to live with it.

[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.

So uhh .. you two going to use your brilliance to reply?

Or are you just going to sit around jerking each other off?

[IronDanHamza]

I'm not sure what age you consider his prime but here goes.

How about:

Jose Luis Ramirez?(24)
Julio Cesar Chavez?(29)
Oscar Delahoya?(33)
Felix Trinidad?(35)

(age)

You're clueless

1. Whitaker clearly beat Ramirez in the first fight.

2. The poster clearly said from 135-140.

So why are you using examples of fighters he lost above 140?


Your posts in this thread have been beyond absurd.

You claim Pacqauio has one of the Top 10 best resumes ever.

You say Pacqauio's Barrera win trumps everything Whitaker did, how about his win over Chavez?? Doesn't really trump that does it?

Jab said it best, you clearly have no clue what you're talking about..

[IronDanHamza]

One thing I will say is this : Of all the things I've learned from being a boxing fan for as long as I have : trying to talk about Pernell Whitaker's career with a Pacquiao fan is about as intelligent as going to your public library and looking up how to make bombs on the internet.

They simply can't understand anything about the fundamentals, so it's a waste of my ****ing time.

Very true.

Some of the comments in this thread are unbelievable.

[Ragnar Lothbrok]

pernell beats pac at any weight but pac has the better resume.

Plenty of fighters that are ranked higher that would get beaten by fighters with lesser resume.

Nevertheless,

Resume > Skills, talent, hypothetical greatness and one on one match ups.

I could see floyd beating some boxers in the ATG top 20 but that doesnt mean Floyd should rank higher.

I remember how old school vanguards love to use the resume defense when trying to be blatantly biased about ranking old school fighters much higher yet when a modern fighter clearly has the much more decorated resume than a older timed fighter, they want to abandon their Resume > over anything mantra.

Hypocrites.

[Mr. Invincible]

Whitaker is a better boxer than Barrera, Morales & JMM

Morales was washed up and boxed pac's ears off......the first win vs Barrera was good....fightin him 4 years later when MAB was washed up was blah...

fighting JMM 3 times in 8 years in 3 weight classes and not being able to convincingly defeat him is BLAH......

All 3 have comparable resume's to Sweet pea. Morales barely beat Pac and he was at his absolute peak and nowhere near washed up. You can forget about that.

Barrera was at his peak as well and Pac blitzed and almost stopped absolute prime Marquez as well. He holds two other wins over him no matter how small a margin. A win is a win.

A 6-1-1 record against 3 other ATG's is a hell of a record. What is sweet pea's record against atg's?

On second thought, this isn't even worth debating.

This is not debatable. AT ****ING ALL.

Anyone who picked Whitaker must have an agenda and I don't have time for it.

[bojangles1987]

People overrate Whitaker and his jukeing and jiving style horrendously.

He wouldn't have the power to hurt Pac and he himself has a glass jaw which we saw from the Trinidad fight. And Trinidad doesn't have the combination of power and speed like Pac

Pac would beat him down badly and eventually get tired of chaseing him around the ring like Cotto and Mosley

Theres also a 50-50 chance he gets hattoned

Epic, I thought you might get lazy but you delivered.

[JAB5239]

All 3 have comparable resume's to Sweet pea. Morales barely beat Pac and he was at his absolute peak and nowhere near washed up. You can forget about that.

Barrera was at his peak as well and Pac blitzed and almost stopped absolute prime Marquez as well. He holds two other wins over him no matter how small a margin. A win is a win.

A 6-1-1 record against 3 other ATG's is a hell of a record. What is sweet pea's record against atg's?

On second thought, this isn't even worth debating.

This is not debatable. AT ****ING ALL.

Anyone who picked Whitaker must have an agenda and I don't have time for it.

Who has Manny beat that was as good as Chavez?

[Mr. Invincible]

You're clueless

1. Whitaker clearly beat Ramirez in the first fight.

2. The poster clearly said from 135-140.

So why are you using examples of fighters he lost above 140?


Your posts in this thread have been beyond absurd.

You claim Pacqauio has one of the Top 10 best resumes ever.

You say Pacqauio's Barrera win trumps everything Whitaker did, how about his win over Chavez?? Doesn't really trump that does it?

Jab said it best, you clearly have no clue what you're talking about..

I don't know what I'm talking about but you are defending a guy who lost at 135, which was what the question was about and doesn't have a win over Chavez at all but you cite that as a great accomplishment. If you think a draw with Chavez is better than a KO win over prime Barrera, so be it. We will know you are nuts.

I love how in this same post you say I don't know what I'm talking about, sucking up to some idiot, trolling moderator who thinks that means something in life.

You are amazing. Look, I understand you are black and proud and all, and it's relative but use some common sense for once.

I'm far from Filipino. I'm just calling it like it is.
Don't take it so personally initially.

It only gets personal when you make it that way.