90s vs 2000s WW Final Pernell Whitaker vs Floyd Mayweather
So far it has been an even tournament. Both sides have won an equal amount of fights. No more. After tonight we shall have a winner.
In his last fight Mayweather was up against the dangerous and heavyhanded Felix Tito Trinidad. In an amazing display of speed and ring generalship, the Pretty Boy was able to take an early lead. Trinidad came back strong in the mid rounds as he caught Mayweather with some clean body shots that seem to slow him down. As the pressure increased by Tito, Mayweather found a new gear and stepped it up a notch. Just enough to survive the late onslaught by Trinidad and go on to win by close, yet convincing UD. Can he do it again and clame the championship?
Whitaker had an even harder time with Mosley. In not one, but two amazing battles of skill and grace and speed we saw two of the best leave their all on the ring. At the end of both fights we were still no closer to determine a winner. Only by technicality was Whitaker able to move on. This time though, he will have to win to demonstrate 90s WW superiority.
Re: 90s vs 2000s WW Final Pernell Whitaker vs Floyd Mayweather
I think Mayweather wins this. In terms of skill they are on the same level, but Mayweather is the superior athlete. I see him like MOsley beating Whitaker to the punch, and out landing Whitaker in this fight because they have comparable defenses, but like I said he is in a different league when it comes to speed.
Re: 90s vs 2000s WW Final Pernell Whitaker vs Floyd Mayweather
I went for floyd jus to slick be a close chess match of a figt but id go floyd UD.
Re: 90s vs 2000s WW Final Pernell Whitaker vs Floyd Mayweather
I've seen Whitaker lose to fighters that Mayweather would take to the cleaners.
As it stands right now, Whitaker is pretty far ahead of Floyd on the all time greats list. But when all is said and done, Mayweather will be a notch above Pernell. Try not to forget that Mayweather is an undefeated world champion in 5 different weight classes, and he's still only 30.
Both fighters bring incredible defense to the table, but Mayweather brings a lot more offense.
Mayweather by 2 rounds in a close decision.
Re: 90s vs 2000s WW Final Pernell Whitaker vs Floyd Mayweather
At welterweight I have to go with Floyd...If this was at 135 or 140 I would go with Pernell....IMO he would actually frustrate Floyd with his awkward style and inability to hit Pernell with combo's continuously....You can't beat Whitaker landing one punch at a time.....I went with Floyd on this one
Re: 90s vs 2000s WW Final Pernell Whitaker vs Floyd Mayweather
Mayweather hands down and tied behind his back
Re: 90s vs 2000s WW Final Pernell Whitaker vs Floyd Mayweather
Quote:
Originally Posted by frozensolid_702
I've seen Whitaker lose to fighters that Mayweather would take to the cleaners.
As it stands right now, Whitaker is pretty far ahead of Floyd on the all time greats list. But when all is said and done, Mayweather will be a notch above Pernell. Try not to forget that Mayweather is an undefeated world champion in 5 different weight classes, and he's still only 30.
Both fighters bring incredible defense to the table, but Mayweather brings a lot more offense.
Mayweather by 2 rounds in a close decision.
I totally agree with this cc.
Re: 90s vs 2000s WW Final Pernell Whitaker vs Floyd Mayweather
Quote:
Originally Posted by ICE COLD BOXING
Quote:
Originally Posted by frozensolid_702
I've seen Whitaker lose to fighters that Mayweather would take to the cleaners.
As it stands right now, Whitaker is pretty far ahead of Floyd on the all time greats list. But when all is said and done, Mayweather will be a notch above Pernell. Try not to forget that Mayweather is an undefeated world champion in 5 different weight classes, and he's still only 30.
Both fighters bring incredible defense to the table, but Mayweather brings a lot more offense.
Mayweather by 2 rounds in a close decision.
I totally agree with this cc.
cc back.
Re: 90s vs 2000s WW Final Pernell Whitaker vs Floyd Mayweather
I usually don't like these fantasy matchups but this is the one that intrigues me.
It depends, the 147 Whitaker people talk about is probably the guy that fought Rivera, De La Hoya and Vazquez. If it's that Whitaker, the slightly older - less prime Whitaker then it's probably Mayweather who I would take.
But that isn't a prime Whitaker. If you take the 140 lb Pernell Whitaker from the early 90's who was throwing 50-70 punches a round then Whitaker most definitely wins imo. Same with the Whitaker who was outboxing Chavez and McGirt. He would be to active and in a fight where neither guy is going to get hurt or touched up too much, Whitaker wins a points decision just because he would be the more offensive guy. Whitaker was throwing a bunch of punches a round when he was at his best, something Mayweather at 147 has done nothing of.
So it depends which, but at their bests, I would take Whitaker.
Re: 90s vs 2000s WW Final Pernell Whitaker vs Floyd Mayweather
Whitaker by decision.
Both great defensive fighters and smart boxers. But Whitaker in his prime could throw 70+ punches a round (and got up to 90-100 on a few occasions). Mayweather has never been a high output fighter.
I think Whitaker wins a close fight because he would simply out-land and out-throw Floyd.
Re: 90s vs 2000s WW Final Pernell Whitaker vs Floyd Mayweather
He wouldn't have been able to be that active against Mayweather who uses a lot more footwork than any of those guys. Also the punch that set everything else up for Whitaker was the right jab and Mayweather keeps his hands up against southpaws so that would never get through. Now people will say look how Zab landed his left, but that was more because of that split second his speed got him in there that WHitaker wouldn't have been able to get there with. Mayweather throws a lot more leather when he fights against a southpaw.
I think its a close fight where WHitaker would out throw Mayweather, but noway would he outland him.
Re: 90s vs 2000s WW Final Pernell Whitaker vs Floyd Mayweather
Its Whitaker by close controversial split decision.
:appl: :allhail: :club: :cheerleader: :dancer: :moon-new: :yay2: :bananasex: :bananastyle: :beerchug: :band: :clap: :juggle: :jerk: :sitr:
Congratz and thanks all for participating.
Re: 90s vs 2000s WW Final Pernell Whitaker vs Floyd Mayweather
I will say this. I belive that the welterweight versions of both Whitaker and Mayweather are at this time slightly overrated.
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.
But whitaker does have a huge following on these boards and Mayweather is hotter than the sun right now. So I suppose this is to be expected.
Mayweather has more fights left in him to shine at this division though.
Re: 90s vs 2000s WW Final Pernell Whitaker vs Floyd Mayweather
i think mayweather wins this by decision
Re: 90s vs 2000s WW Final Pernell Whitaker vs Floyd Mayweather
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.
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.
