Where do you rank Pernell Whitaker on the all-time great list ?????

[IamInuit]

I'd put him right in there with Gans, Leonard, Duran, Armstrong, Williams and the like. Easy top 10 at lightweight and maybe top 5 on many lists.

I think only Duran would have beaten Sweat Pea at lightweight but at welter Pernell wins.

That is cool. I'd put him just below the 5 I mentioned at 135 but have no issues with those who would rank him higher.

[greynotsoold]

I don't rank Whitaker as highly as most. If I ever took the time to make a list of the guys I consider the top 100 p4p fighters, he wouldn't be on it, but then neither would Ali.
As a LW he isn't beating Duran, Benny Leonard, Armstrong, Ike Williams, Gans. I don't see him beating Beau Jack or Bob Montgomery, after talking to people that saw them (and Whitaker) fight from ringside. I don't think he beats Lou Ambers, who gave Armstrong such hard fights. I don't think he beats Carlos Ortiz and I don't think he beats Ismael Laguna.
At WW, he doesn't do well with the champions of the division. Even the overlooked guys like Zivic beat him; he fought Robinson tooth and nail twice, beat LaMotta and lost 3 or 4 split decisions to him. Guys like Tommy Bell beat him, and he was never champ, same with Charlie Burley.
At LW he might make my top 20, if I ever made a list. Not my top 50 at WW. Too many really good fighters and Whitaker's shuck and jive nonsense wouldn't impress them and, offensively, he didn't have enough to hang with the guys that would fight through his games.

[p4pking]

Just because guys have been around forever doesn't mean they are any more objective or less prone to revisionist history, if anything the opposite is true imo. I think many people are always biased towards the fighters which turned them on to the sport. The younger members of this forum will probably grow old talking about how so and so would have never beat a prime Roy Jones or Pacquiao, no matter what they learn about the sport or who else is around in 30 years.

Fritzie Zivic probably wouldn't make it out of the 2nd round without being DQ'ed in a modern prizefight, just for instance.

[greynotsoold]

Just because guys have been around forever doesn't mean they are any more objective or less prone to revisionist history, if anything the opposite is true imo. I think many people are always biased towards the fighters which turned them on to the sport. The younger members of this forum will probably grow old talking about how so and so would have never beat a prime Roy Jones or Pacquiao, no matter what they learn about the sport or who else is around in 30 years.

Fritzie Zivic probably wouldn't make it out of the 2nd round without being DQ'ed in a modern prizefight, just for instance.

I think that there is a great deal of truth to that first part. Zivic was known as a very clever boxer with a good jab and solid right hand, as well as being a tremendous body puncher. He did a lot more than fight 'dirty'

[p4pking]

I'm sure he was, but if you're intentionally thumbing people in the eyes, throwing elbows like jabs and headbutting repeatedly on HBO it isn't going to fly. There are probably a bunch of journeyman today that could be world class if they got a pass for that.

[BIG H]

Top 20 p4p all time for sure in my book.

[Beanflicker]

Pernell was a special talent. I find it insulting when people say old school guys would have beaten him, or Duran would have KO'd him. Whitaker was about as good as it gets at the sweet science. He'd have those idiots swinging and hitting air.

I don't know why people underrate Pernell so badly. How someone can only have Pernell in their top 20 is absolutely insane. Especially to rank guys over him who we've never seen fight, who all we know about is from press clippings. Sheesh.

To me, it's always like the science vs religion argument. You guys can believe the fantasy tales about guys from 100 years ago being complete world beaters who would chase our modern greats out of the ring. Worship and that church, be my guest.

Me? I'm going to believe in the greatness I can see.

[jehoshaphat]

Pernell was a special talent. I find it insulting when people say old school guys would have beaten him, or Duran would have KO'd him. Whitaker was about as good as it gets at the sweet science. He'd have those idiots swinging and hitting air.

I don't know why people underrate Pernell so badly. How someone can only have Pernell in their top 20 is absolutely insane. Especially to rank guys over him who we've never seen fight, who all we know about is from press clippings. Sheesh.

To me, it's always like the science vs religion argument. You guys can believe the fantasy tales about guys from 100 years ago being complete world beaters who would chase our modern greats out of the ring. Worship and that church, be my guest.

Me? I'm going to believe in the greatness I can see.

Absolutely on point! Pernell as great as he was is somehow underrated. How I still can't figure it out. Dude in his prime was pretty much not hittable while still in the pocket. I don't see anyone matching up well with Pernell. Who sees Pernell's style and said this guy (Insert name) matches up well with him? I am not trying to start an argument but I am seriously interested in seeing something I may be missing. SRL at 147 is the only guy I can see possibly beating Sweet Pea and only at 147 or 154.

[FinitoElDinamita]

All time rankings below top 5 are too subjective so I'd rather not touch it but I would place him near Alexis Arguello.

[Jerry Rice]

All time rankings below top 5 are too subjective so I'd rather not touch it but I would place him near Alexis Arguello.

You're joking right finito ?

[IamInuit]

Just because guys have been around forever doesn't mean they are any more objective or less prone to revisionist history, if anything the opposite is true imo. I think many people are always biased towards the fighters which turned them on to the sport. The younger members of this forum will probably grow old talking about how so and so would have never beat a prime Roy Jones or Pacquiao, no matter what they learn about the sport or who else is around in 30 years.

Fritzie Zivic probably wouldn't make it out of the 2nd round without being DQ'ed in a modern prizefight, just for instance.

There is truth in that but I cant help but be the sum of my parts. I try to be as objective as I can but also believe the reverse is true. Some believe boxing started in 1990 and anyone that came before that couldn't compete which is ridiculous and I wont go into that here. And the fact remains that some of these earlier guys were as good as people say they were.

It would be interesting to gather a top 15 Saddo atg list based on voting by the members in every weight class.

[p4pking]

Just because guys have been around forever doesn't mean they are any more objective or less prone to revisionist history, if anything the opposite is true imo. I think many people are always biased towards the fighters which turned them on to the sport. The younger members of this forum will probably grow old talking about how so and so would have never beat a prime Roy Jones or Pacquiao, no matter what they learn about the sport or who else is around in 30 years.

Fritzie Zivic probably wouldn't make it out of the 2nd round without being DQ'ed in a modern prizefight, just for instance.

There is truth in that but I cant help but be the sum of my parts. I try to be as objective as I can but also believe the reverse is true. Some believe boxing started in 1990 and anyone that came before that couldn't compete which is ridiculous and I wont go into that here. And the fact remains that some of these earlier guys were as good as people say they were.

It would be interesting to gather a top 15 Saddo atg list based on voting by the members in every weight class.

Hey for sure, and boxing is a lot different than most sports in that we'll never know. I don't consider you an offender here by any means either. I'm just of the opinion that many, if not most people who have watched any sport for years tend to be less objective about the modern landscape of it, when it should be the other way around. It's a nostalgia thing as much as anything else imo.

[IamInuit]

Just because guys have been around forever doesn't mean they are any more objective or less prone to revisionist history, if anything the opposite is true imo. I think many people are always biased towards the fighters which turned them on to the sport. The younger members of this forum will probably grow old talking about how so and so would have never beat a prime Roy Jones or Pacquiao, no matter what they learn about the sport or who else is around in 30 years.

Fritzie Zivic probably wouldn't make it out of the 2nd round without being DQ'ed in a modern prizefight, just for instance.

There is truth in that but I cant help but be the sum of my parts. I try to be as objective as I can but also believe the reverse is true. Some believe boxing started in 1990 and anyone that came before that couldn't compete which is ridiculous and I wont go into that here. And the fact remains that some of these earlier guys were as good as people say they were.

It would be interesting to gather a top 15 Saddo atg list based on voting by the members in every weight class.

Hey for sure, and boxing is a lot different than most sports in that we'll never know. I don't consider you an offender here by any means either. I'm just of the opinion that many, if not most people who have watched any sport for years tend to be less objective about the modern landscape of it, when it should be the other way around. It's a nostalgia thing as much as anything else imo.

No offence taken and true enough. We sit right alongside those who think Marquez landed a lucky punch.

[p4pking]

There's nothing lucky about that A side meth

[chinchekked]

I think that the fact that his style wasn't as crowd pleasing as other and at time he made it look so easy hurts his standing in the minds of some fans but he is one of my all time faves without question