Pernell Whitaker or Manny Pacqioau greater resume?

[Violent Demise]

I definitely would argue it, Whitaker was great, but Pacquiao resume was a lot better than Pernell's, and who exactly would have beaten Manny? Julio Cesar Chavez was smaller than Pernell Whitaker, and a similarly smaller JCC in comparison to PAcquiao would not beat him, no way would Chavez be able to deal with his speed and movement.

The difference is Whitaker like Mayweather fought and beat a lot of solid competition, but Pacquiao has foughten and beaten a lot of great competition.

As for a confrontation between Pacquiao and Whitaker, how can you say that Whitaker would win easily? People don't even think Mayweather who is faster, harder to hit, and bigger would win easily. I see Pacquiao who is faster, so busy offensively, and so powerful giving WHitaker all he can handle and more. Whitaker's defense relied on reflexes that wouldn't work against as well against a faster fighter. I have Manny winning 6/10, he's the better fighter.

Also in your list Pacquiao fought Marquezx2 and Barrerax2

I've seen Whitaker's career, and he definitely beats young Pacquiao, but not modern Pacquiao.

And you wonder why people consider you idiot. Whitaker in his prime toys with Pacquiao. Easily. 10 rounds to 2. A shut out wouldn't be out the question. You need to look at Whitaker acutally fight. Instead of just looking at his record, seeing his poor ko % and saying Pac beats him. Cuz that wouldn't be the case.

And if you really think Pac could beat Chavez than your not just an idiot. Your an idiot with a serious crack problem. Prime for prime Chavez would molest Pacquiao the way your uncle did to you as a kid

[TheDemolitionDan]

Pernell Whitaker is a much much better fight than Pacquiao and Whitaker has the much much better resume. Pacquiao realy hasn't beaten anybody that impresses me besides Juan Manuel Marquez and he barely survived two fights and you can may'be throw in Jorge Solis, but that's reaching. He's beaten a shot Marco Antonio Barrera, Erik Morales, Oscar De La Hoya, and Ricky Hatton. There is nothing about Pacquiao's resume that impresses me, Whitaker hands down it isn't even close.

[ElTerribleMorales]

Pernell Whitaker is a much much better fight than Pacquiao and Whitaker has the much much better resume. Pacquiao realy hasn't beaten anybody that impresses me besides Juan Manuel Marquez and he barely survived two fights and you can may'be throw in Jorge Solis, but that's reaching. He's beaten a shot Marco Antonio Barrera, Erik Morales, Oscar De La Hoya, and Ricky Hatton. There is nothing about Pacquiao's resume that impresses me, Whitaker hands down it isn't even close.

MAB was hardly shot, Morales still had something left in the 2nd fight, and Ricky Hatton wasn't shot by any means, i don't think Pacquiao's as great as some make him out to be, but he's far from being all hype

[generalbulldog]

Pernell Whitaker is a much much better fight than Pacquiao and Whitaker has the much much better resume. Pacquiao realy hasn't beaten anybody that impresses me besides Juan Manuel Marquez and he barely survived two fights and you can may'be throw in Jorge Solis, but that's reaching. He's beaten a shot Marco Antonio Barrera, Erik Morales, Oscar De La Hoya, and Ricky Hatton. There is nothing about Pacquiao's resume that impresses me, Whitaker hands down it isn't even close.

MAB was hardly shot, Morales still had something left in the 2nd fight, and Ricky Hatton wasn't shot by any means, i don't think Pacquiao's as great as some make him out to be, but he's far from being all hype

I say this is the best objective post in here. Very good analysis. Manny is very good but a tad little hype. Whittaker in his prime will give Pacman trouble by outpointing him.

[brucelee]

Pernell Whitaker is a much much better fight than Pacquiao and Whitaker has the much much better resume. Pacquiao realy hasn't beaten anybody that impresses me besides Juan Manuel Marquez and he barely survived two fights and you can may'be throw in Jorge Solis, but that's reaching. He's beaten a shot Marco Antonio Barrera, Erik Morales, Oscar De La Hoya, and Ricky Hatton. There is nothing about Pacquiao's resume that impresses me, Whitaker hands down it isn't even close.

Then you're not watching boxing. His wins over Ledwaba, BArrera, Morales, DLH,Hatton impressed the world.

PAc first fought a BARRERA THAT WAS POUND FOR POUND NUMBER2 in many people's eyes that time. Some would even argue that he is pound for pound #1. Remember the title "KING OF THE FEATHERWEIGHT?" How can you say he was shot?


Watch pac's fights and tell me you're not impressed.

[donnydarkoIRL]

Whittaker....man he was something else.

I'm one of the guys that believes he never actually lost

His evasiveness was just incredible.
He mastered boxing.

I like Pacquiao and think he's an ATG, but Pernell's resume is better and if they fought Manny would be soundly beaten

[halo1]

I used to think Manny was all speed, a little bit of power but had very crude boxing skills. Yet, he did improve and continuously does so every fight after his loss to Morales. That is what is makes him different. It would be unfair to compare both fighters now. Let us wait till Manny retires and judge him then. As it is, Pernell's record and abilities may give him the edge for now. However, if Manny fights Mayweather, JMM (again), Cotto, maybe Mosely and wins convincingly, then there will be no question who has a better resume and who is a better fighter. Hell even if he loses to one of the four mentioned, I would probably cast my vote his (MP) way.

[JazMerkin]

Whitaker all day, the guy really was something else, for my money, the greatest fighter of the 90s ahead of Roy Jones & that is saying a lot because Jones was amazing. Apart from the Trinidad fight which he clearly lost, but he was shot by then & the following Bojoruez fight when he broke his collar bone (& even then I thought he would of won had that not happened), I think he won every fight of his career. I thought he edged ODLH, although it was close, I got the impression he would have had to have got a near shutout to win, he most DEFINITELY beat JCC & the corruption that robbed him in the Ramirez fight defied belief (even rounds my ass)

[ICB]

Whitaker all day, the guy really was something else, for my money, the greatest fighter of the 90s ahead of Roy Jones & that is saying a lot because Jones was amazing. Apart from the Trinidad fight which he clearly lost, but he was shot by then & the following Bojoruez fight when he broke his collar bone (& even then I thought he would of won had that not happened), I think he won every fight of his career. I thought he edged ODLH, although it was close, I got the impression he would have had to have got a near shutout to win, he most DEFINITELY beat JCC & the corruption that robbed him in the Ramirez fight defied belief (even rounds my ass)

I thought he done pretty good against a prime Felix Trinidad, considering how past his prime he was. I think he won 3 or 4 rounds, and he was able to really hurt Felix Trinidad to the body in round 7. In that fight you see a great older fighter, who lost his reflexes and speed.

And he had to slug it out and you really see how much heart and how good of a chin, Pernell Whitaker had. And not many people know that Pernell Whitaker actually had a broken jaw aswell.

[ICB]

Delete triple post by accident.

[Violent Demise]

Pernell Whitaker is a much much better fight than Pacquiao and Whitaker has the much much better resume. Pacquiao realy hasn't beaten anybody that impresses me besides Juan Manuel Marquez and he barely survived two fights and you can may'be throw in Jorge Solis, but that's reaching. He's beaten a shot Marco Antonio Barrera, Erik Morales, Oscar De La Hoya, and Ricky Hatton. There is nothing about Pacquiao's resume that impresses me, Whitaker hands down it isn't even close.

Then you're not watching boxing. His wins over Ledwaba, BArrera, Morales, DLH,Hatton impressed the world.

PAc first fought a BARRERA THAT WAS POUND FOR POUND NUMBER2 in many people's eyes that time. Some would even argue that he is pound for pound #1. Remember the title "KING OF THE FEATHERWEIGHT?" How can you say he was shot?


Watch pac's fights and tell me you're not impressed.

I have no doubt that you have no clue who Whitaker is

[ElTerribleMorales]

I definitely would argue it, Whitaker was great, but Pacquiao resume was a lot better than Pernell's, and who exactly would have beaten Manny? Julio Cesar Chavez was smaller than Pernell Whitaker, and a similarly smaller JCC in comparison to PAcquiao would not beat him, no way would Chavez be able to deal with his speed and movement.

The difference is Whitaker like Mayweather fought and beat a lot of solid competition, but Pacquiao has foughten and beaten a lot of great competition.

As for a confrontation between Pacquiao and Whitaker, how can you say that Whitaker would win easily? People don't even think Mayweather who is faster, harder to hit, and bigger would win easily. I see Pacquiao who is faster, so busy offensively, and so powerful giving WHitaker all he can handle and more. Whitaker's defense relied on reflexes that wouldn't work against as well against a faster fighter. I have Manny winning 6/10, he's the better fighter.

Also in your list Pacquiao fought Marquezx2 and Barrerax2

I've seen Whitaker's career, and he definitely beats young Pacquiao, but not modern Pacquiao.

And you wonder why people consider you idiot. Whitaker in his prime toys with Pacquiao. Easily. 10 rounds to 2. A shut out wouldn't be out the question. You need to look at Whitaker acutally fight. Instead of just looking at his record, seeing his poor ko % and saying Pac beats him. Cuz that wouldn't be the case.

And if you really think Pac could beat Chavez than your not just an idiot. Your an idiot with a serious crack problem. Prime for prime Chavez would molest Pacquiao the way your uncle did to you as a kid

Whitaker hands down, especially when his two only valid losses were against DLH and Trinidad, and they were in their primes while he clearly wasn't, Chavez not being able to deal with speed and power? Meldrick Taylor IMO was just as fast if not faster than Pacquiao, and could box a hell of a lot better also, difference in Chavez/Pacquiao is that Chavez would have knocked Manny out a lot earlier than the final round

[Taeth]

I definitely would argue it, Whitaker was great, but Pacquiao resume was a lot better than Pernell's, and who exactly would have beaten Manny? Julio Cesar Chavez was smaller than Pernell Whitaker, and a similarly smaller JCC in comparison to PAcquiao would not beat him, no way would Chavez be able to deal with his speed and movement.

The difference is Whitaker like Mayweather fought and beat a lot of solid competition, but Pacquiao has foughten and beaten a lot of great competition.

As for a confrontation between Pacquiao and Whitaker, how can you say that Whitaker would win easily? People don't even think Mayweather who is faster, harder to hit, and bigger would win easily. I see Pacquiao who is faster, so busy offensively, and so powerful giving WHitaker all he can handle and more. Whitaker's defense relied on reflexes that wouldn't work against as well against a faster fighter. I have Manny winning 6/10, he's the better fighter.

Also in your list Pacquiao fought Marquezx2 and Barrerax2

I've seen Whitaker's career, and he definitely beats young Pacquiao, but not modern Pacquiao.

And you wonder why people consider you idiot. Whitaker in his prime toys with Pacquiao. Easily. 10 rounds to 2. A shut out wouldn't be out the question. You need to look at Whitaker acutally fight. Instead of just looking at his record, seeing his poor ko % and saying Pac beats him. Cuz that wouldn't be the case.

And if you really think Pac could beat Chavez than your not just an idiot. Your an idiot with a serious crack problem. Prime for prime Chavez would molest Pacquiao the way your uncle did to you as a kid

Whitaker hands down, especially when his two only valid losses were against DLH and Trinidad, and they were in their primes while he clearly wasn't, Chavez not being able to deal with speed and power? Meldrick Taylor IMO was just as fast if not faster than Pacquiao, and could box a hell of a lot better also, difference in Chavez/Pacquiao is that Chavez would have knocked Manny out a lot earlier than the final round

Taylor wasn't as tough, Chavez was younger when he fought Taylor and closer to his prime than when he fought Whitaker, and Meldrick Taylor stood there and traded with Chavez too much, he got caught up in his combinations. Sure he had great speed and boxing ability, but he didn't use his footwork as consistently to maintain to large a gap for Chavez to close like Manny would. Also DLH wasn't in his prime yet when he fought WHiatker, he was still a pup.

[JazMerkin]

And you wonder why people consider you idiot. Whitaker in his prime toys with Pacquiao. Easily. 10 rounds to 2. A shut out wouldn't be out the question. You need to look at Whitaker acutally fight. Instead of just looking at his record, seeing his poor ko % and saying Pac beats him. Cuz that wouldn't be the case.

And if you really think Pac could beat Chavez than your not just an idiot. Your an idiot with a serious crack problem. Prime for prime Chavez would molest Pacquiao the way your uncle did to you as a kid

Whitaker hands down, especially when his two only valid losses were against DLH and Trinidad, and they were in their primes while he clearly wasn't, Chavez not being able to deal with speed and power? Meldrick Taylor IMO was just as fast if not faster than Pacquiao, and could box a hell of a lot better also, difference in Chavez/Pacquiao is that Chavez would have knocked Manny out a lot earlier than the final round

Taylor wasn't as tough, Chavez was younger when he fought Taylor and closer to his prime than when he fought Whitaker, and Meldrick Taylor stood there and traded with Chavez too much, he got caught up in his combinations. Sure he had great speed and boxing ability, but he didn't use his footwork as consistently to maintain to large a gap for Chavez to close like Manny would. Also DLH wasn't in his prime yet when he fought WHiatker, he was still a pup.

The Chavez that fought Whitaker was still a prime JCC & he got beat regardless of the corrupt scoring. It wasn't for another few years probably around the Kamau fight that you could say his prime was over. I think Chavez would have been a nightmare for Manny, not because I think he's better, I rate Pac higher, just that I think his swarming style would have got him. He ain't no Ricky Hatton. Also as for the ODLH comment, Oscar was by the time of their fight a 3 weight world champ & had been a pro for nearly 6 years. That isn't a pup, & many think Whitaker won the fight. That is right in Oscar's prime & Whitaker whose prime was over still won in many eyes.

[Taeth]

The problem is styles, Chavez is a hooker, and in order to land a left hook on a southpaw fighter, you have to have enough footspeed to get in close, and Chavez did not have great footspeed, especially at 140 and welterweight. It wasn't just that Chavez wasn't quite in his prime(and he wasn't) Chavez was closer to his prime at the turn of the 90's, but the fact is that Pernell had been fighting around welterweight for awhile before they fought, and Chavez isn't a boxer like Marquez, Mayweather, Pacquiao, he is a straight forward I am going to outtough, and outmuscle you, but when guys like Mosley, Whitaker and OScar used their superior strength he didn't look anywhere near as good. But Chavez looked terrible after the WHitaker fight against Frankie Randall, he wasn't in his prime. The reason why Chavez would have so much trouble around welterweight agianst Pacquiao is simply because he moved so slow, like Cotto he did have a good cross, but if I had to guess who would win if Chavez used his cross against Manny's i think the answer would be pretty clear. Also Chavez isn't Hatton, he has a way better beard, but Hatton had a lot of footspeed to close that gap, and he still got caught coming in. Pacquiao didn't really let Hatton land very effectively on the inside.

I am not comparing p4p Chavez to Pacquiao, he was a different beast at lightweight, but that wasn't the guy who fought Whitaker.

When it comes to Mayweather, Whitaker, and Pacquiao I don't see a huge variation in skill level, obviously Mayweather and Whitaker are the better defensive fighters, but Pacquiao's offensive skills are at the same level as their defensive skills, and he has gotten way better defensively. The problem for Whitaker IMO is that 1) He had a lot of solid but not great competition like I've said. 2) He isn't as fast as the other two, and he really relies on being the faster man.

I am not trying to say Pacquiao is a god like some guys on here claim, but people need to wake up and smell the coffey, he along with Marquez have proven themselves to be tacticians of the very highest order. They combine all the attributes that make a great fighter power, speed, evasiveness, footwork, stamina, huge competitive edge, heart, determination, technique, and well roundedness.

3 years ago you could say Pacquiao wasn't well rounded, but now its clear to see he is, he can counter, he can lead, he used both hands very well, he can brawl, punch, etc, etc.