Re: 90s vs 2000s WW Final Pernell Whitaker vs Floyd Mayweather
Quote:
Originally Posted by SweetPea
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Rookie Fan
I was not expecting two fighters who mostly made their marks at the lower weight classes, one of which has only two fights as a Welterweight against two B fighters at best, make the top two.
I disagree with this though. The biggest wins of Whitaker's career came at 147. His fight against Chavez and his two wins against McGirt were more impressive than anything he did at lightweight. And when he lost at 147, it wasn't because of the weight class, it was because he was old. He would've clearly beaten Oscar and Tito at 147 in his prime.
We'll be saying a similar thing about Mayweather soon too. Say for the sake of argument that he beats Hatton and then beats the winner of Cotto/Mosley. If that were to happen, the most important wins of Floyd's career would be at 147-154.
I agree to a point. Mainly what I meant is that their skills and boxing ability was better showcased at the lower weightclasses. Shurley Mosley was better as a lightweight but his biggest wins also came at 147-154.
I'm just not sure that 147lb Whitaker would have ever beat an elite WW. Chavez was also coming up and McGirt was not exactly elite. Yes I know, most (not me) think he beat DLH while past his prime but if I am not mistaken this was DLH's first fight as a WW and I'm not so shure he would beat 99 DLH or a 99 Tito or a 2000 Mosley. I could be wrong though.
As for Mayweather, as I said before, he still has time to make his mark at 147. That is why I said, at this time he is slightly overrated as a WW. Lets just wait and see.
Re: 90s vs 2000s WW Final Pernell Whitaker vs Floyd Mayweather
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Rookie Fan
Quote:
Originally Posted by SweetPea
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Rookie Fan
I was not expecting two fighters who mostly made their marks at the lower weight classes, one of which has only two fights as a Welterweight against two B fighters at best, make the top two.
I disagree with this though. The biggest wins of Whitaker's career came at 147. His fight against Chavez and his two wins against McGirt were more impressive than anything he did at lightweight. And when he lost at 147, it wasn't because of the weight class, it was because he was old. He would've clearly beaten Oscar and Tito at 147 in his prime.
We'll be saying a similar thing about Mayweather soon too. Say for the sake of argument that he beats Hatton and then beats the winner of Cotto/Mosley. If that were to happen, the most important wins of Floyd's career would be at 147-154.
I agree to a point. Mainly what I meant is that their skills and boxing ability was better showcased at the lower weightclasses. Shurley Mosley was better as a lightweight but his biggest wins also came at 147-154.
I'm just not sure that 147lb Whitaker would have ever beat an elite WW. Chavez was also coming up and McGirt was not exactly elite. Yes I know, most (not me) think he beat DLH while past his prime but if I am not mistaken this was DLH's first fight as a WW and
I'm not so shure he would beat 99 DLH or a 99 Tito or a 2000 Mosley. I could be wrong though.
As for Mayweather, as I said before, he still has time to make his mark at 147. That is why I said, at this time he is slightly overrated as a WW. Lets just wait and see.
Ya I see your point, but I have to disagree here. A prime Whitaker would have clearly beaten a prime Oscar or Tito at 147. I think he beats Mosley too.
The only welterweights I would favor over a prime Whitaker are Ray Robinson, Ray Leonard, and maybe Hearns.
Re: 90s vs 2000s WW Final Pernell Whitaker vs Floyd Mayweather
This fight would look a lot like Collazo/Mosley with Mayweather playing Sugar's part. Both guys would be extremely hard to hit but at the end of the night you'd have one clearly looking busier out of the two. Whitaker would get on a bike and run late, but Mayweather has never felt compelled to KO anybody. Whitaker would pretty much just be stretching his legs and then get brought back to earth by his corner telling him he needed a KO that would never come. Mayweather by easy UD as he also has more power out of the two and more will to use it.
Re: 90s vs 2000s WW Final Pernell Whitaker vs Floyd Mayweather
Quote:
Originally Posted by SweetPea
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Rookie Fan
Quote:
Originally Posted by SweetPea
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Rookie Fan
I was not expecting two fighters who mostly made their marks at the lower weight classes, one of which has only two fights as a Welterweight against two B fighters at best, make the top two.
I disagree with this though. The biggest wins of Whitaker's career came at 147. His fight against Chavez and his two wins against McGirt were more impressive than anything he did at lightweight. And when he lost at 147, it wasn't because of the weight class, it was because he was old. He would've clearly beaten Oscar and Tito at 147 in his prime.
We'll be saying a similar thing about Mayweather soon too. Say for the sake of argument that he beats Hatton and then beats the winner of Cotto/Mosley. If that were to happen, the most important wins of Floyd's career would be at 147-154.
I agree to a point. Mainly what I meant is that their skills and boxing ability was better showcased at the lower weightclasses. Shurley Mosley was better as a lightweight but his biggest wins also came at 147-154.
I'm just not sure that 147lb Whitaker would have ever beat an elite WW. Chavez was also coming up and McGirt was not exactly elite. Yes I know, most (not me) think he beat DLH while past his prime but if I am not mistaken this was DLH's first fight as a WW and
I'm not so shure he would beat 99 DLH or a 99 Tito or a 2000 Mosley. I could be wrong though.
As for Mayweather, as I said before, he still has time to make his mark at 147. That is why I said, at this time he is slightly overrated as a WW. Lets just wait and see.
Ya I see your point, but I have to disagree here. A prime Whitaker would have clearly beaten a prime Oscar or Tito at 147. I think he beats Mosley too.
The only welterweights I would favor over a prime Whitaker are Ray Robinson, Ray Leonard, and maybe Hearns.
He was that good huh... I'm gonna have to get myself some tapes on him at 147.
CC for arguments.
Re: 90s vs 2000s WW Final Pernell Whitaker vs Floyd Mayweather
Quote:
Originally Posted by liquid
This fight would look a lot like Collazo/Mosley with Mayweather playing Sugar's part. Both guys would be extremely hard to hit but at the end of the night you'd have one clearly looking busier out of the two. Whitaker would get on a bike and run late, but Mayweather has never felt compelled to KO anybody. Whitaker would pretty much just be stretching his legs and then get brought back to earth by his corner telling him he needed a KO that would never come. Mayweather by easy UD as he also has more power out of the two and more will to use it.
I rest my case.
Please, Liquid first he would win easy against Tito now he would win easy agains Whitaker ??? Nobody, NOBODY, not even Ray Robbinson would have an easy UD against Whitaker. He might win but it sure as hell won't be easy.
Why would Whitaker get on his bike at any point of this fight. Mayweather might have a slight edge in power but what makes you think he would make Whitaker run, a man who was never hurt in his entire career.
You know how this fight would look IMHO. It would be like the first 3 rounds of the Judah fight multiplied by 4.
