Pernell Whitaker vs. Shane Mosley @ Lightweight.

[Ron Swanson]

Shane's a danger from round 1 to 12, and he's going to win some rounds vs Pea, it's unavoidable. No LW in history is going to walk over Shane, he was a fucking beast at that weight.

I agree. I would give my left testicle to be able to go back in time and somehow orchestrate Shane vs. Floyd at 135. I think that is a PHENOMENAL match up, and while I lean slightly towards Floyd winning an ATG fight, I wouldn't be willing to bet either way on that fight. Shane was at his best at 135 and I don't think that Floyd was at his best at that weight, so I think it would be one of the most interesting fights to make at 135. Really, a round robin with Shane, Pea and Floyd would be fascinating... Equal to Hop, Hagler and Monzon at 160 and Ray Robinson, Ray Leonard and Floyd at 147...

You said the same flawed logic I illustrated in my previous post in your next. You called Shane a great boxer, he wasn't, he overwhelmed with speed. You pointed to the same things that held him back as his strengths, whenever he was asked before a fight how he would win and he said "I'm fast and I hit hard" I immediately bet on his opponents. His strengths were his flaws. He was fast and he did hit hard. But when it wasn't working he tried to punch faster and harder. That is why he never developed his skill further, he didn't need to and when he did need to he was too dumb. But that dumb was always there, it was there at 135, 147, 154. And when he lost it was excuses. He just didn't meet a guy at 135 that would make those excuses necessary. The monster Shane is like Santa Clause and Focused Zab, they don't exist. Shane looks a monster when he is in control, aggressive fighters always do. That's why every aggressive fighter in history of the sport is overrated. And when they meet their match they can't adjust. The better, more boring fighters are only remembered for their true superiority when they retire. The Muhammed Ali's and Lennox Lewis's of the world weren't thought the monsters that George Foreman and Mike Tyson were thought to be. Big George was "unbeatable" and Iron Mike was "unbeatable" until it was shown how easy it was. So is the monster Shane to Pea. 15 years from now we will recognize the true superiority. None of the at this weight or in these conditions or if if if. Pea was just better, and not slightly better, vastly better.

[mikeeod]

Shane's a danger from round 1 to 12, and he's going to win some rounds vs Pea, it's unavoidable. No LW in history is going to walk over Shane, he was a fucking beast at that weight.

I agree. I would give my left testicle to be able to go back in time and somehow orchestrate Shane vs. Floyd at 135. I think that is a PHENOMENAL match up, and while I lean slightly towards Floyd winning an ATG fight, I wouldn't be willing to bet either way on that fight. Shane was at his best at 135 and I don't think that Floyd was at his best at that weight, so I think it would be one of the most interesting fights to make at 135. Really, a round robin with Shane, Pea and Floyd would be fascinating... Equal to Hop, Hagler and Monzon at 160 and Ray Robinson, Ray Leonard and Floyd at 147...

You said the same flawed logic I illustrated in my previous post in your next. You called Shane a great boxer, he wasn't, he overwhelmed with speed. You pointed to the same things that held him back as his strengths, whenever he was asked before a fight how he would win and he said "I'm fast and I hit hard" I immediately bet on his opponents. His strengths were his flaws. He was fast and he did hit hard. But when it wasn't working he tried to punch faster and harder. That is why he never developed his skill further, he didn't need to and when he did need to he was too dumb. But that dumb was always there, it was there at 135, 147, 154. And when he lost it was excuses. He just didn't meet a guy at 135 that would make those excuses necessary. The monster Shane is like Santa Clause and Focused Zab, they don't exist. Shane looks a monster when he is in control, aggressive fighters always do. That's why every aggressive fighter in history of the sport is overrated. And when they meet their match they can't adjust. The better, more boring fighters are only remembered for their true superiority when they retire. The Muhammed Ali's and Lennox Lewis's of the world weren't thought the monsters that George Foreman and Mike Tyson were thought to be. Big George was "unbeatable" and Iron Mike was "unbeatable" until it was shown how easy it was. So is the monster Shane to Pea. 15 years from now we will recognize the true superiority. None of the at this weight or in these conditions or if if if. Pea was just better, and not slightly better, vastly better.

I can see your points, and think many are valid, but I disagree for a couple of reasons. First, when Shane fought Oscar (who was a prime HOFer at the time) his ability to make an adjustment is what won him the fight (great fight!). Against a prime Cotto, Shane once again made the necessary adjustment and began to take the fight over (too late and therefore lost the close decision). Pea was a great boxer, but he was NOT going to stop Shane. Pea had a great right jab and beautiful combinations, but Shane was HUGE for the weight and at that point (in my opinion) was still boxing effectively and not completely sold on his own hype. I stick with my original thought that it would have been a phenomenal fight that Pernell would have eventually won.

[La Cucaracha]

Whitaker was much better than Forrest or Wright and at 135 it wouldn't be close

[mikeeod]

Whitaker was much better than Forrest or Wright and at 135 it wouldn't be close

Agree on Pea being better. One question: do you think it was skill alone that allowed those two to beat Shane or skill combined with significant size advantages? In my opinion it wasn't that Shane was outclassed, was just a case of him losing to bigger Men who could fight. Shane would enjoy a SIGNIFICANT size advantage over Pernell.

[La Cucaracha]

Whitaker was much better than Forrest or Wright and at 135 it wouldn't be close

Agree on Pea being better. One question: do you think it was skill alone that allowed those two to beat Shane or skill combined with significant size advantages? In my opinion it wasn't that Shane was outclassed, was just a case of him losing to bigger Men who could fight. Shane would enjoy a SIGNIFICANT size advantage over Pernell.

Agree those 2 had bigger size advantages, especially in Forrest's case. But De La Hoya was of very similar size to Mosley and Whitaker arguably won that fight and at 33 years old fighting at welter