Pernell Whitakker had far better footwork than any version of Floyd Mayweather.

[Kagami Taiga]

If you genuinely think Whitaker was robbed against De La Hoya, isn't it very telling that a prime Mayweather could only just about equal his performance against a substantially older, more diminished fighter?

The DLH whitaker faced wasn't exactly prime either. And Mayweather clearly beat DLH more convincingly. So no, your argument is flawed.

[Ham Porter]

The DLH whitaker faced wasn't exactly prime either. And Mayweather clearly beat DLH more convincingly. So no, your argument is flawed.

De La Hoya was very much in his prime against Whitaker and few without an agenda would dispute that. And if Whitaker was robbed, that would suggest he won around eight rounds (or at least seven convincingly), which is the consensus maximum number of rounds Mayweather won against a shopworn, inactive De La Hoya.

[Doctor_Tenma]

If you genuinely think Whitaker was robbed against De La Hoya, isn't it very telling that a prime Mayweather could only just about equal his performance against a substantially older, more diminished fighter?

It really isn't, Whitaker himself has struggled against opponents Mayweather would have made easier work of.

[kiDynamite92]

So does just about every fighter in boxing history. In fact the only fighters I'd put in the same bracket are Pep, Stevenson & Rigondeaux. No shame there.

Teofillio?

[junior gong]

Why are 90 percent of the threads on here about Floyd?

Why are 90% of the threads you make about floyd?

[dan_cov]

Teofillio?

Adonis Yeah Teofilo, I knew I should of edited that so it didn't cause confusion

[soul_survivor]

In terms of pure footwork, yes Whitaker was better but if we take into account a plethora of other factors, I believe Mayweather is a better all round fighter, especially offensively. Whitaker was so good with his defense, he often made guys frustrated but in some of his biggest fights, he didn't always capitalise because his offense was often so mediocre. It's why so many of his bouts, at the highest levels had close scores or were called "robberies" some of which clearly weren't.

[kiDynamite92]

Adonis Yeah Teofilo, I knew I should of edited that so it didn't cause confusion

I was a bit confused since Teofillio was the only one of the lot who was never a pro. You could also add Felix Savon onto that list, he was basically amazing at everything. His nephew Erislandy isn't bad either!

[dan_cov]

I was a bit confused since Teofillio was the only one of the lot who was never a pro. You could also add Felix Savon onto that list, he was basically amazing at everything. His nephew Erislandy isn't bad either!

Could definitely add Savon in the mix as well as a lot of other high end Cuban amateurs. I love Erislandy's style so rare you see a fighter of his size be that smooth and fluid, he made Anthony Joshua look utterly ridiculous still gutted he got robbed. I'd love him to turn pro.

That really would be a HW prospect to get excited about.

[IronDanHamza]

In terms of pure footwork, yes Whitaker was better but if we take into account a plethora of other factors, I believe Mayweather is a better all round fighter, especially offensively. Whitaker was so good with his defense, he often made guys frustrated but in some of his biggest fights, he didn't always capitalise because his offense was often so mediocre. It's why so many of his bouts, at the highest levels had close scores or were called "robberies" some of which clearly weren't.

The only fights that are called robberies are Ramirez 1, Chavez and Oscar are the only one that wasn't a robbery out of those three was Oscar.