Sweet Pea says he, Taylor & JCC would have beaten Pacquiao!!!

Zab Judah's new trainer, former four-weight world champion Pernell 'Sweet Pea' Whitaker has said that Pacquiao wouldn't have been able to beat either himself, Meldrick Taylor or Julio Cesar Chavez if the four were around at the same time.

Sweet Pea even says that his current charge Zab is a better boxer than Manny Pacquiao, and that Judah could beat Pacquiao.

Speaking of Judah, Whitaker says: "I think that Zab could beat Manny Pacquiao. I think Zab is a better boxer. Zab has a better mix of punches. He has a good jab and a good left hand. I think that Zab has an overall better tool kit than Manny Pacquiao, who is more of a guy who throws a lot of punches and I guess."

Whitaker goes on to say: "But if you work hard and you're prepared to go the full 12 rounds, it doesn't matter how many punches you can throw. Zab can't be a gorilla against Manny Pacquiao, he would just have to out-box him. Nobody is boxing nowadays."

After coming off a great stoppage win over Mabuza, and having beaten the highly-rated Lucas Matthysse recently, Judah seems to be experiencing something of a career revival. Now he's the IBF title-holder, is there still more to be achieved by 'Super' Zab at this point?

With Judah now holding a belt at light welterweight there's obviously the possibility of a unification bout with the winner of Khan vs Bradley, but if he wins that could we be seeing Zab 'Renaissance Man' Judah out-box Manny Pacquiao in a mega-fight?

Whitaker also mentions Floyd Mayweather in the interview, saying: "He's a great fighter. Maybe he's the best."



http://www.boxingscene.com/pernell-whitaker-on-pacquiao-mayweather-judah-more--36820

Obvious baiting, and there's already a thread on this article.

Not on this article there isn't.

Close enough, you know what you are trying to do with the article, and it's very hypocritical.

I find it quite funny personally

Scott, it may seem hypocritical, but the article I have referred to is not the same one as in that other thread. As such I think it's only fair to highlight the other aspects of what the former P4Per and ATG Mr Whitaker has said.

IG and coxy have the right idea, and if your sense of humour doesn't allow you to see the lighter side of life, then that is unfortunate.

You do realise D4 does it to wind up too? You don't actually think he has those views? Most of it is clearly tongue in cheek. I don't sit on the same side of the fence at all, just think it's weird to complain about someone focusing on one topic with one hand while feeding him with the other.

Perfectly valid article.

I think Whitaker makes some good points.

Joe Jeannette said Sam Langford would have beaten Joe Louis, doesn't make it so now does it.

Scottrf wrote:You do realise D4 does it to wind up too? You don't actually think he has those views? Most of it is clearly tongue in cheek. I don't sit on the same side of the fence at all, just think it's weird to complain about someone focusing on one topic with one hand while feeding him with the other.

That's the essence of the problem though, isn't it ?

When we only have the printed word humour doesn't always translate well, and we can get a bit hot under the collar. I know I used to go into orbit with the invaders from the football forums whose idea of humour was ' Butterbean v Khan, who wins ? ' because it's human nature to fire back when somebody is on the wind up.

Probably best to occasionally take a step back and see it for what it is. I'm pretty sure that D4 would admit that he enjoys pushing buttons if he were really put on the spot.

I might ask him, come to think of it. He and I haven't jousted for a while.

Scott, D4 has to my knowledge never admitted to being a wind-up. As such I think it's unfair of you to try to drag his good name through the mud like that.

BALTIMORA wrote:Scott, D4 has to my knowledge never admitted to being a wind-up. As such I think it's unfair of you to try to drag his good name through the mud like that.

And, ladies and gents, we have our post of the day !

Sometimes humour DOES translate perfectly.

Glad to be appreciated, Windy! 8)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iy5TG41bPyQ&feature=fvst


As you can see those last few fights really took its toll on Sweet Pea, slurring his words, so you can't t put too much weight in everything he says.

But he did have his eye on Zab even back then and noticed flaws in his game, so to what he was saying about Mayweather we have to believe because he has been consistent.

D4thincarnation wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iy5TG41bPyQ&feature=fvst


As you can see those last few fights really took its toll on Sweet Pea, slurring his words, so you can't t put too much weight in everything he says.

But he did have his eye on Zab even back then and noticed flaws in his game, so to what he was saying about Mayweather we have to believe because he has been consistent.

Slurring words only hampers your ability to speak clearly. It doesn't hamper your judgement on the respective abilities of boxers. Roach slurs his words and that is not only due to Parkinson.

For me Zab takes Pac by a street. I wonder why Pac refuses to fight African American boxers anywhere near their peak.

I wonder why Pac refuses to fight African American boxers anywhere near their peak.

I suggest you read what Sweet Pea said about it or Nazim Richardson, or anyone with an ounce of boxing knowledge.

Think Sweet Pea maybe sounding that way because of all the drugs he did, those things will mess up you mind too.

D4thincarnation wrote:

I wonder why Pac refuses to fight African American boxers anywhere near their peak.

I suggest you read what Sweet Pea said about it or Nazim Richardson, or anyone with an ounce of boxing knowledge.

Go on, tell me what they said. I need to increase my boxing knowledge by a couple of grams.

D4thincarnation wrote:Think Sweet Pea maybe sounding that way because of all the drugs he did, those things will mess up you mind too.

I take it the drugs affects his mental ability adversely when being critical of Floyd but not when praising pac. D4 your wumming is amusing.

So you think perhaps Whitaker's opinion can't be taken at face value when he talks about current boxers, and that his judgement is impaired? Certainly possible after prolonged substance abuse, I suppose.

I must say Im in general agreement with Mr Whitaker on Pacquiao (although suggestion of Mayweather as the greatest ever is nonsensical).

I look at Pacquiao in two clear terms.Before and after. Pacquiaos record above his super featherweight exploits is a triumph of matchmaking and manufacturing. I by no means subcribe to the view that he is near all time great status above super featherweight.

Between bantam and super featherweight is where I tend to look at Pacquiao as a good fighter and in this weight stretch he has arguments for being great.

Unfortunately post Marquez, Pacquaio has systematically been able to pick, choose and stack the deck as he pleases against opposition and makes a habit of fighting guys that are vunerable. Its no real surprise to me that he has not managed to get a fight done with Mayweather, Martinez or even a rubber match with Marquez, as all three of these guys have actually been impressing. Fighting Mosely as his next fight sums up Pacquiaos post super featherweight career for me. Engineered.

D4

Please go read the Admin article that is aimed at you.

Your wumming is pathetic, so from the very same article you choose to slate FMJ then ignore what he has to say about Pacquiao?! You need to get a life.

So go on, go read what has become apparent to the admins and what the whole board should do to avoid you chatting your tripe.

Cotto and Margarito are both good wins Colonial, even if the others aren't too impressive.

Colonel Lion, you are far too cynical in your assessment of Pacquiao's career post-super featherweight. Everyone knows that Mr Pacquiao doesn't have any say in the opposition he faces. Mr Roach devises a shorlist from which Mr Arum selects the fighter he thinks would make the bestest fight in the whole wide world. Mr Pacquiao has no influence whatsoever-and that's the truth.

Scottrf wrote:Cotto and Margarito are both good wins Colonial, even if the others aren't too impressive.

I think Hatton is a cracking win, he was the main man at 140lb even though everyone jumps through hoops to tell us he was finished.

Not sure why fans are obsessed with running fighters wins down nowadays, Floyd over Mosley, Pacquiao over Cotto. Not sure what many want.

azania wrote:

D4thincarnation wrote:Think Sweet Pea maybe sounding that way because of all the drugs he did, those things will mess up you mind too.

I take it the drugs affects his mental ability adversely when being critical of Floyd but not when praising pac. D4 your wumming is amusing.

I don't think he was being critical of Floyd he just rates Zab highly, he thinks Zab has a lot of the same qualities he did.

Hatton, of course. Records are picked apart to a level of scrutiny noone applies to old time records.

Scottrf wrote:Hatton, of course. Records are picked apart to a level of detail noone applies to old time records.

Very True Scott mate, have a great weekend chaps.

Whitaker was certainly not being critical of Mayweather. He says he thinks Floyd may be the best. That's high praise indeed.

Scottrf wrote:Cotto and Margarito are both good wins Colonial, even if the others aren't too impressive.

You have to look at he circumstances of both wins. Cotto had suffered a gruelling loss to Margarito (whether illegally or not) and had then gone on to scrape a split decision with the limited Josha Clottey. The vulture like instincts of the Pacquiao management were onto this and knew the timing was right. Since then Cotto has moved to Light middleweight and beaten a one legged Foreman. I remain unconvinced he is the fighter he was pre Margarito and feel cetain Arum and Roach felt the same way.

Margarito was again just cynical opportunism. Take a fighter that even at his best was limited, whos reputation and entire career has been opened up to question and then fight him when he has been banned for a year and had no meaningful fights since being demolished.

Since super featherweight Pacquiao has simply targetted guys who are on a downward spiral. When is the last time he took on someone coming off a great win or great performance or whos reputation was high? Add this then to his catchweight clauses and stipulations and the way he stacks the deck in his favour and virtually his whole career post Marquez II has followed this kind of theme. Its vulture like and I think its completely overrated when a little scrutiny is implied.

His below lightweight career is another matter completely and its really in those divisions he distinguished himself. Above that, his acheivements are grossly overblown.

A lot of people thought if Pacquiao fought Cotto they would have to mop Pacquiao up after the fight. It was deemed the toughest fight Pacquiao could take.

Pacquiao did not just win he put on a master class performance and stopped Cotto and had him back peddling on his bike for 8 rounds.

Now what did Cotto do after that fight?

After that fight he did what Pacquiao did-he had another Arum lackey who was lower down on uncle Bob's food chain sacrificed to him to make him look better.

BALTIMORA wrote:Colonel Lion, you are far too cynical in your assessment of Pacquiao's career post-super featherweight. Everyone knows that Mr Pacquiao doesn't have any say in the opposition he faces. Mr Roach devises a shorlist from which Mr Arum selects the fighter he thinks would make the bestest fight in the whole wide world. Mr Pacquiao has no influence whatsoever-and that's the truth.

Be that as it may, but I am assessing Pacquiao on what he has done, and how he has done it. Not what he would do if Arum and Roach were not in charge.

Any degree of analysis on his career after Marquez II will highlight precisely how manufactured Pacquiaos career is and how he consinstently opts for fighters who are on a downward trend or vunerable and subjects them to various stipulatations. If you want cynical I suggest you examine Pacquiaos selections after super featherweight.

Cotto is a great fighter one of the best of the last 10 years. If he would have walked Mayweather's path he would still be unbeaten but Cotto like to test himself against the best and takes one tough fight after another. A credit to the sport.

Did you write off Frazier in Ali I because he was coming off a brutal loss to Foreman?

It's a level of detail that is only applied to recent boxers. Mayweather gets slated because Marquez was out of his division, Ezzard Charles beats a number of boxers moving up a similar amount of weight and he gets credit because of the names on his record. Either praise both or neither.

'Catchweight clauses' - Again, would you apply that level of detail to another boxer or is he the first to put in catchweights? Cotto had to lose 2 pounds, hardly relevant. Margarito was the bigger man and had barely campaigned at LMW, I think the weight benefited him more than Pacquiao. If it had been at 147 I bet barely anyone would complain, the only real problem is that it was for a title.

It's revisionist history, the same people who say it's a step too far before the fight tell us after the fight how the opponent was handpicked.

Scott you're right that criteria should be applied fairly, but recently people have been saying BEFORE the fights that Pacquiao's opponents are carefully picked. Also with the Cotto catchweight-it's that age old counter argument that if 145lbs dint make a difference, why bother having it at all?

Scottrf

I dont see the relevance of bringing up past fighters like Ali and Charles here in the context of this argument. For the record I disagree entirely. Frazier - Ali II is probably the least relevant of the trilogy but it was obvious from Fraziers performances in the fights before and after Ali II he was by no means finished or an easy opponent. His losses to Foreman were as much down to Foreman being great fighter himself with the style and power to be the almost perfect medicine for Fraziers approach. Charles proved numerous times against outstanding opposotion that he was an all time great.

I am talking about Pacquiao in relation to Whitakers cmments and that he would be unable to beat Chavez, Taylor or Whitaker himself. I agree fully with Whitaker on that as based on Pacquiaos career above super festherweight I see nothing to suggest he could beat them or perhaps more importantly, would ever set foot in the ring with them!

If you want to discuss Pacquiao in the context of being a great fighter then we must concentrate on him in the lower weights and what he did there because anything above that he has a record that is severely manufactured.

I've heard it all now, comparing the greatest light heavyweight of all time who went on to win the Heavyweight title to Pacquiao?

BALTIMORA wrote:Scott you're right that criteria should be applied fairly, but recently people have been saying BEFORE the fights that Pacquiao's opponents are carefully picked. Also with the Cotto catchweight-it's that age old counter argument that if 145lbs dint make a difference, why bother having it at all?

True, because people are looking to criticise whatever opponent is announced, apart from obviously Mayweather. Not saying they are all perfect opponent choices, but the wins don't have no value at all. R.e. the catchweight. They like to have control, boxers fight over glove brand, ring size, all sorts of things. Is 2 pounds really a reason to write off a win? It takes shine off but it was almost a 50/50 fight beforehand in most peoples eyes even knowing the catchweight.

Colonial Lion wrote:If you want to discuss Pacquiao in the context of being a great fighter then we must concentrate on him in the lower weights and what he did there because anything above that he has a record that is severely manufactured.

Manufactured because you look into his record and opposition in a depth you wouldn't apply to every boxer. You can downgrade some of the wins but not write them off totally. He has done good work above SF too. To write off all his wins above SF as you seem to want to is inconsistent. Other boxers get a free pass on things like style of opponent faced, the weight, having losses previously etc.

imperialghosty wrote:I've heard it all now, comparing the greatest light heavyweight of all time who went on to win the Heavyweight title to Pacquiao?.

You shouldn't be allowed on a PC unsupervised. You seem incapable of reading or understanding an idea you don't already share. Not once did I compare Pacquiao to Charles.

It's exactly this taking the shine off which I wish some people would acknowledge. For the record, I thought Cotto had a good chance if he could negate Pacquiao's speed. I was wrong. You can't deny that Pacquiao has not taken on the toughest challenges when they were available at every opportunity since moving up to 135 and above.

Scottrf

Not all fighters records, believe it or not, are manufactured. Pacquiaos career above super featherweight is blatantly manufactured upon reasonable scrutiny. I will give you the easiest possible example. Compare Pacquiao below lightweight to above and tell me you cant spot the difference?

I dont see how in the circumstances of his wins above super featherweight, Pacquiao can claim to share the company of esteemed fighters like Chavez and Whitaker. Without being exhaustive I could easily name a host of fighters that have a record nowhere near as manufactured as Pacquiaos so no, I am not apply undue scrutiny to Pacquiao. In fact I think it only takes a small amount of inspection before it looks rather obvious as opposed to some kind in depth analysis you seem to think I am employing. But I dont have the time to list every Lightweight to Light Middleweight with a better and less manufactured record than Pacquiao. You will have to take me my word for it that there are many.

I again I ask you to consider the various catchweight stipulations Pacquiao has employed, the timing of his opponents, the other options available to him and the general circumstances. If you do this you will see that Pacquiao has clearly employed a vulture mentality. He has consistently chosen the weaker option over the stronger one - why? Because hes now a superstar who can make money regardless of opposition. Pre lightweight he did not have this luxury and was forced to to take on the biggest challenges. This is why I only view Pacquiao as great in the context of his below lightweight career.

Drawing parrallels with Ali v Frazier II is not, in my eyes remotely the same for many reasons.

The point your missing is that Charles was a middleweight and did fight the best of his era over and over again so I fail to see how he's relevant to Pacquiao or Mayweather. Neither of them come close to him. Or am I missing your point, gotta agree with Dave on this one, must be your time of the month.

So you can separate his career in two and then list people who have a better career than one half of this? I don't see that as particularly impressive.

Cotto, Margarito and Hatton are good wins, but you seem to write them off completely rather than put a small question mark by them. It's clear you are reciting cliches regarding Pacquiao and your vulture terminology shows this.

I don't need you to list anything, I have good knowledge of the sport thank you.

The parallels are along the same principles even if the standard isn't as high. Frazier took a bad beating and Ali got credit for the second fight. Cotto and Margarito get beatings and Pacquiao's wins are worth nothing.

IG. I didn't say anything about whose career should be ranked higher, so I don't really understand your point. You're reading things that aren't there in an attempt to patronise. My point is that when one boxer outweighs an opponent it's overlooked, when others do it completely writes off the win. I have Charles around top 5 P4P.

I don't see how Charles fits in mate, he was in all his biggest fights the smaller man with the exception of his two fights with Maxim at heavyweight

Scottrf wrote:So you can separate his career in two and then list people who have a better career than one half of this? I don't see that as particularly impressive.

Cotto, Margarito and Hatton are good wins, but you seem to write them off completely rather than put a small question mark by them. It's clear you are reciting cliches regarding Pacquiao and your vulture terminology shows this.

I don't need you to list anything, I have good knowledge of the sport thank you.

The parallels are along the same principles even if the standard isn't as high. Frazier took a bad beating and Ali got credit for the second fight. Cotto and Margarito get beatings and Pacquiao's wins are worth nothing.

IG. I didn't say anything about whose career should be ranked higher, so I don't really understand your point. You're reading things that aren't there in an attempt to patronise. My point is that when one boxer outweighs an opponent it's overlooked, when others do it completely writes off the win. I have Charles around top 5 P4P.

Well I am sorry but you are comparing a single Ali win, to Pacquiaos entire mentality above super featherweight. Ali beat Frazier and also beat virtually every rival he had. Whats your point? Frazier was a much better fighter than either Cotto or Margarito, he wasnt required to come at a certain weight, or had been banned for a year. The thing he has in common is that he had suffered a heavy defeat prior to Ali. After that the comparisons end.

I am NOT dismissing Pacquiaos career post super featherweight. These are words you are putting in my mouth. What I am saying is that his career post super featherweight is not one of great status. He cannot be compared to Julio Cesar Chavez or Whitaker - which is what the article is commenting on. Its perfectly reasonable to say a fighter was great at one weight but not particularly so at another - so yes splitting Pacquiaos career in half is entirely plausible. Do we say Duran was a great Light heavyweight or middleweight because of what he did at Lightweight? No we look at his lightweight career seperately. Do we say Hearns was a great light heavyweight because of what he acheived at welterweight and lightmiddleweight? Again no. We look at it seperately. Pacquiao very much follow suit in my opinion. If we want to look at him as a potential great fighter then we should look at what he did between bantamweight and superfeatherweight. After that he cannot claim to be great in any of the higher divisions - largely due to the nature of his wins and opponents. This isnt "entirely dismissing" them. But it is a firm basis on why he cannot be considered longside the greats of those divisions.

imperialghosty wrote:I don't see how Charles fits in mate, he was in all his biggest fights the smaller man with the exception of his two fights with Maxim at heavyweight

Do people ever mention weight with Charles wins over Burley?

Do you know why they don't? I'll start by saying i'd completely forgotten about them when I posted that.

Burley proved himself at middleweight whereas Marquez has not and most probably will not prove himself above lightweight. I'm not one to place Burley on pedastal and certainly don't have him in my top ten at middleweight but you can't ignore the IBRO placing him at number ten. It's not the best way of explaining this but you get my point.

.... awaiting an ear bashing from Jeff

He hadn't proved himself at Middle at that point. But I don't believe that these sort of things are ever given consideration to old records, regardless of what he had done afterwards but are used to render more modern wins with a weight advantage obsolete. Probably because they have experienced it.

CL: It's the revisionist history I don't like. Cotto goes from being near 50/50 before the fight to 'shot after being destroyed by Margarito'. Many thought Hatton would be too strong, afterwards 'Mayweather finished him/he was just a face first brawler'. I think a lot of the criticism's are valid but their impact is overblown by some, especially the catchweights. You're right though as to the general trend but he has a number of good wins in both parts of his career.

That is a fair point but what happens after a fight is just as important to what happened before, the whole picture is important.

Burley went on to prove himself a very capable Middleweight whereas Marquez wont do the same at Welterweight, he was working his way through the ranks at the time and Charles himself was struggling to find fights. Got to say it was a difficult time for black fighters at the time, so you have to cut them some slack, they weren't given the opportunities of today.

Bit deep there but ah well