Who's the better defensive fighter Floyd Mayweather Jr. or Pernell Whitaker?

[jai mari078]

The knockdown that the ref didn't call a knock down lol!!!!!

[!! Shawn]

You say "Marquez at 147" why don't you highlight that Pavlik and Wright were at 170?

He lost to Calzaghe, Dawson and Kovalev.

So that leaves Tarver, Tavouris Cloud and Pascal.

I'll go with Mayweather.

And Mayweather can argue longevity. Hopkins is older but age is a number. How long since Hopkins was first champion? 21 years to Floyd's 19.

Hopkins was considered green at age 28 and didn't win his first title until age 29 whereas Floyd won his first title at age 21.

Hopkins hit his prime at age 35. Floyd was passed it at 35.

Floyd's consistency however is much better.

What does it matter if he lost? He stepped up to the legitimate best fighters in their divisions at damn near 50 years old.

Hokpins will step in with Kovalev at 50, but Floyd wont step in with GGG at 154.

Thats besides the point. But his defense has been tested against better opposition than Floyd has, and its held up over the long haul. He has never taken a beating, always managed to be slick and elusive.

Thats my point. If you move the goal posts, you move them into Bernard Territory.

Also the idea that Bernards prime started at 35 is just dumb. Maybe his mainstream recognition started at 35, but to say his prime didnt start till late is silly talk.

[Xi_]

What does it matter if he lost? He stepped up to the legitimate best fighters in their divisions at damn near 50 years old.

Hokpins will step in with Kovalev at 50, but Floyd wont step in with GGG at 154.

Thats besides the point. But his defense has been tested against better opposition than Floyd has, and its held up over the long haul. He has never taken a beating, always managed to be slick and elusive.

Thats my point. If you move the goal posts, you move them into Bernard Territory.

Also the idea that Bernards prime started at 35 is just dumb. Maybe his mainstream recognition started at 35, but to say his prime didnt start till late is silly talk.

you don't get credit for taking L's in your big fights......odlh would be the goat if thats the case.

[b00g13man]

What does it matter if he lost? He stepped up to the legitimate best fighters in their divisions at damn near 50 years old.

Hokpins will step in with Kovalev at 50, but Floyd wont step in with GGG at 154.

Thats besides the point. But his defense has been tested against better opposition than Floyd has, and its held up over the long haul. He has never taken a beating, always managed to be slick and elusive.

Thats my point. If you move the goal posts, you move them into Bernard Territory.

Also the idea that Bernards prime started at 35 is just dumb. Maybe his mainstream recognition started at 35, but to say his prime didnt start till late is silly talk.

Looool. Your resume consists of who you beat, not who you fought, you tit.

[Doctor_Tenma]

Hopkins is great defensively just not on that level, what is there to discuss?

[!! Shawn]

Looool. Your resume consists of who you beat, not who you fought, you tit.

Your resume consists of who you fought. And at 50 years old, Hopkins still stepping up to the plate against the most dangerous opponents he can find, and his defense still keeping him competitive.

[!! Shawn]

Hopkins is great defensively just not on that level, what is there to discuss?

If you are arguing that Floyd defense is better than Pernells because Floyds career has lasted longer, than that logic dictates Hopkins defense is better than Floyds. That is the simple point I am making.

Im not saying Hopkins defense is better than Floyds or Pernells.

Im saying applying dumb logic like that, leads to a situation where you must objectively rate Hopkins as better than Floyd, because you are now including longevity as a criteria.

[b00g13man]

Your resume consists of who you fought. And at 50 years old, Hopkins still stepping up to the plate against the most dangerous opponents he can find, and his defense still keeping him competitive.

Ah, so you rank Cotto higher than Floyd and Manny since he's got two fighters of that calibre on his "resume" while the others only have one. Gotcha.

You learn something new everyday.

[b00g13man]

If you are arguing that Floyd defense is better than Pernells because Floyds career has lasted longer, than that logic dictates Hopkins defense is better than Floyds. That is the simple point I am making.

Im not saying Hopkins defense is better than Floyds or Pernells.

Im saying applying dumb logic like that, leads to a situation where you must objectively rate Hopkins as better than Floyd, because you are now including longevity as a criteria.

Floyd has lasted longer without losing. That's the point. Losing fights while getting hit consistently =/= great defence. It's not a difficult concept to grasp.

[IronDanHamza]

What does it matter if he lost? He stepped up to the legitimate best fighters in their divisions at damn near 50 years old.

Hokpins will step in with Kovalev at 50, but Floyd wont step in with GGG at 154.

Thats besides the point. But his defense has been tested against better opposition than Floyd has, and its held up over the long haul. He has never taken a beating, always managed to be slick and elusive.

Thats my point. If you move the goal posts, you move them into Bernard Territory.

Also the idea that Bernards prime started at 35 is just dumb. Maybe his mainstream recognition started at 35, but to say his prime didnt start till late is silly talk.

What does it matter he lost? It matters because it doesn't go on his resume obviously.

I haven't moved the goal post once.

He has taken a beating and he's also lost decisevely multiple times.

The guy was green at 28 years old. He didn't reach his prime until his 30's. That's completely normal for late starters like Hopkins.