I find it ironic roy Pernell and Floyd are not beloved but were the best of their tim

[The Noose]

100% you don't know what irony means lol

Or you can't see the irony...

No, you really misused the word irony.

If a boxer is regarded as the best p4p, but isnt the most popular, that isnt ironic.

It could be said that the irony in this thread is you accusing others of racism while needlessly bringing race into a popularity vote. Floyd and Sweet Pea were great boxers, but lacked the excitement factor that less talented fighters had. Its as simple as that.

Jones was always my favourite. But Oscar was 'the golden boy' because he had big mega fights and was a promoters dream.

Race does play a part in popularity, but not in the way you are suggesting.

[soul_survivor]

Avoiding the race bait of this thread, looking at things objectively, are these 3 men really the best of their times? And if they are, do most fans, writers and contemporary boxers agree with that idea?

Pernell Whitaker, one of the most talented fighters of the 80s and early 90s, turned pro in 1984 and didn't win his first world title till 1988. Between the boxing golden age of 84-88, Duran, Hagler, Hearns, Spinks, Holmes, Tyson, Leonard all could hold claim to being one of the top 10 best fighters on the planet. Heck throw in Chavez Sr who had won multiple world titles by this stage in his career. Out of that 4 year stretch, I can't imagine anyone, black, white, asian or alien making a claim that Whitaker was better than all those guys.

Whitaker's heyday was probably 1990-1994/5, where he was the leading welterweight on the planet, at a time when the welterweight division was prtety thin but wasn't he universally recognised as the number one p4p fighter on the planet during that period? Does anyone dispute that? No. So why is Whitaker being brought up in this argument? Whitaker was the best when he was supposed to be the best. You'd have to be a mad man to rank him alongside SRL, or Hearns or Hagler or Tyson throughout the 80s, it's just not possible.

With Jones and Mayweather, it gets a bit more tricky. Jones is openly labelled by just about every boxing magazine, book, website and journalist I have read as the best fighter of the 1990s, something I disagree with but a lot of fans would disagree with me. He had all the talent and physical gifts on the planet to be the best but there is more that can be written about the fighters he DIDN'T fight than the ones he did. Where's Eubank, Benn, Collins on his resume? What about Machewhatever? These guys aren't there. So, if a fan has a grievance and wants to rank someone else as the best of that decade, there are valid arguments for that reason.

Personally, the best fighter of the 90s for me would be Holyfield, followed by the likes of Oscar and Whitaker before we even get to Jones.

With Mayweather, from 2000-2009, you would have to be extremely biased to claim he had the better resume when compared to Pacquiao, who has the added benefit of Barrera, Morales and Marquez on his hit list, with destructive performances thrown in for good measure. We could say Mayweather is the better of the two from 2010-15 but even then, it's not a solid argument, as the Pacquiao win is marred by the timing and Pacquiao still has a better welterweight win over Bradley than Mayweather has with Ortiz, Guerrero and Maidana. Can anyone objectively disprove that?

[Pac=Duran]

Or you can't see the irony...

You clearly don't know what irony means lol

[Eff Pandas]

I don't think its ironic for Whitaker & Mayweather.

Mayweather has taken on a persona of a heel basically. He's a ****talker like a young Ali who people wanted to see lose. I don't think Ali became beloved til outside the ring stuff lead to his persona being changed to the pubic at large.

Whitaker didn't really seem to have much of a persona outside of being a Olympian & a wizard in the ring. Being a wizard in the ring doesn't garner you much love in an age when guys wanna see rock em sock em robot type fights. The ironic thing in this era is that being too good or too smart to be in hard fights isn't gonna get you love in boxing. You can't be too exceptional cuz no one likes the cat who CAN'T lose or at least CAN'T lose & don't take a lot of punches while doing it.

There was a racial angle agenda by the OP that I think plays here to like it or not. One of the unusual things with boxing vs other sports is that they does seem to be more acceptable racial/nationality preference unlike in any other sport. Mexicans root for Mexicans, PR's root for PR's, Russians root for Russians, Blacks in the US root for Blacks in the US, Whites in the US root for Whites in the US (or Russian Whites since their isn't a large bass of great US White fighters it would seem). Thing is I believe black boxing fans aren't involved in the sport like they once were & a large percentage of other racial or nationality fans stick to their own "people" so its hard for any racial/nationality that doesn't have a good base of fans to ever become beloved. Look at the Cubans for a great example of this. There are 2 or 3 high level Cubans who should have gotten much bigger fan bases then they have gotten, but because there is no Cuban base & few non-Cuban fans will "switch sides" so to speak they are still in virtual obscurity vs their skill level & where they'd be if they were a nationality that was more passionate about boxing (ie Mexican, which is the go to ideal nationality to be with the Mexican boxing fan passion for boxing these days).

[-PBP-]

"There is no room for perfection in boxing"

Winning easy is boring. Your typical beloved fighters are flawed, get hit a lot, and are good underdog stories. No one wants to see the superstar flashy Olympic Gold Medalist enter the scene, take over the game and clown the working class, blue collar Rockys.

[The Noose]

"There is no room for perfection in boxing"

Winning easy is boring. Your typical beloved fighters are flawed, get hit a lot, and are good underdog stories. No one wants to see the superstar flashy Olympic Gold Medalist enter the scene, take over the game and clown the working class, blue collar Rockys.

Prime Tyson won easy. Most exciting fighter of his day.

Its not so much about perfection, its more about how they win. KO punches are always more exciting than scoring jabs. Unless you can dance like Ali.

[-PBP-]

Prime Tyson won easy. Most exciting fighter of his day.

Its not so much about perfection, its more about how they win. KO punches are always more exciting than scoring jabs. Unless you can dance like Ali.

Tyson didn't hit 1 million PPV buys until 1995 when he got out of jail. It was not only his style but his out of the ring persona and personal life.

Factors outside of the ring drive popularity. What did Floyd, Tyson, Pac, Cotto and Canelo all have in common? They fight nothing alike but they are personalities outside of the ring.

Think about it, the more boring Floyd got, the more popular he got. He wasn't selling big at the lower weights when he was stopping dudes and throwing more combos.

[The Big Dunn]

I can understand why a casual boxing fan would gravitate toward brawlers and punchers with out a lot of skill for the same reasons I can understand casual fans of all sports choose exciting performers over the better ones.

This is NSB and I assume those with an accountant are more than casual fans.

I can't understand why diehard hardcore or whatever types of fans we are on NSB do not appreciate skills more. We are the ones that are supposed to be knowledgeable.

It's like hoops. I can understand why casual fans, chicks and kids would choose a Vince Carter over a Tim Duncan, but why would a hardcore knowledgeable fan do that?

[Chrismart]

A lot of the negativity towards Mayweather was due to his attitude. He knew that, he chose to play the 'character' for that very reason..it made him money.
He might rub some people up the wrong way, but people appreciate how good he is, even if they don't admit it.
If people chose to appreciate watching Pacquiao's fighting style more, then that's up to them. People have they're own preferences.

Whitaker was a brilliant fighter. Again though, if people were a bit cold on his style, then that's up to them. They're entitled to enjoy watching someone else if they choose too. That said, i don't know any boxing fans who don't highly rate Whitaker.

As for Roy. I don't know anyone who dislikes him, doesn't rate him or doesn't appreciate his skill.

[The Noose]

Tyson didn't hit 1 million PPV buys until 1995 when he got out of jail. It was not only his style but his out of the ring persona and personal life.

Factors outside of the ring drive popularity. What did Floyd, Tyson, Pac, Cotto and Canelo all have in common? They fight nothing alike but they are personalities outside of the ring.

Think about it, the more boring Floyd got, the more popular he got. He wasn't selling big at the lower weights when he was stopping dudes and throwing more combos.

I think thats a different type of popularity. Controversy drives interest, but the fighter isnt always popular. For example Tyson was notorious after prison. Floyd is not only the p4p best, but very outspoken. His draw is not only from his fans, but also those that want to see him lose.

The public watch boxers based on how much attention the mainstream media pays them. But i was talking about just boxing fans. As was the OP i assumed.
Boxing fans love exciting fighters. I dont think Cotto or Canelo have any real personality that ive seen. But maybe its because im in the UK. All i see with them is their fights. And im a fan of both. Same with Pac. Just a great action fighter.
Whereas technically brilliant boxers can be dull. An exciting style is exciting even if a fighter has many losses.