Fully appreciating the greatness of 'Sweet Pea', at last!

Howdy, boys. Hope the first half of the week hasn't been too tough on anyone?

I doubt there's a single poster on here who would deny that Pernell 'Sweet Pea' Whitaker was great. Renown for his sublime and highly unusual defensive artistry, he was a regular feature at the tiptop end of pound for pound lists throughout the late eighties and early to mid nineties, picking up world titles from Lightweight up to Light-Middleweight; and all of this after a superb amateur career which peaked with Olympic gold in 1984. Some record: some figher.

General consensus on 606v2, and on a few other sites I frequent now and then, is that Whitaker was a standout performer in his time, rather than across all time, and that he commands a place inside the top twenty-five or so pound for pound figthers who've graced the sport. High praise, but the more I think about it, the more I'm beginning to think that we're actually selling him very short by 'only' having him there.

Up until recently, Whitaker hovered around the twenty mark in my all-time estimations, sometimes just inside of it, sometimes just out depending on my mood. I'd heard the odd fan here and there boldy proclaim that Pea was, in fact, a nailed-on top ten man or even top five man, that he was clearly the greatest figher to emerge since Muhammad Ali's star began to wane, and that he'd have had the beating of just about any other Lightweight in history. And I'll admit that, privately, I more or less dismissed these ideas. Sure, Whitaker was perhaps a little underappreciated in his time, and so now people are badly over-compensating for it and going over the top, I thought. Superb fighter, but separated by a fair old distance from the Roberto Durans, Benny Leonards and Willie Peps of this world.

So it's something of an eye-opener to say that I was, put simply, wrong - and that those who were enthusing over Whitaker were actually much closer to the mark.

It's almost seen as boxing blasphemy to look outside of the aforementioned Duran and Leonard (or to a lesser extent, Joe Gans) when trying to decipher who was the greatest Lightweight of all time. But when you look at it objectively, why should Whitaker be discounted? The first man to unify the division since Duran himself, and utterly dominant like 'Manos de Piedra' had been, although in a different way. Like others, I guess I'm easily seduced by Duran's record number of Lightweight title defences, but while Whitaker jumped ship at eight defences compared to Duran's twelve, it's not as if Whitaker had any unfinished business at 135 lb by the time he absconded, as the captain very astutely pointed out when I had a similar debate with him a few months back.

Another notion which seems taken as a given is that Whitaker's opposition at Lightweight wasn't as good as either Duran's or Leonard's. I believe there's a case to say that Pea's 135 lb victims can at least challenge Leonard's collectively speaking, and perhaps even trump Duran's. In the past I've perhaps been a little too quick to devalue Whitaker handily outscoring Azumah Nelson, for instance, on the premise that Nelson was a great Featherweight and Super-Featherweight, rather than Lightweight. But I think it'd be fair to say that Azumah would have beaten plenty of Lightweight titlists across many eras - he just came up against a truly magnificent one in Whitaker. And Nelson still had plenty of distinguishing moments after losing that fight.

If we throw in the supremely consistent two-time world title holder Jose Luis Ramirez (who Whitaker beat at a canter twice, if we ignore the pure larceny of the first 'decision') and the very capable Greg Haugen (who had a habit dropping decisions unjustly - Whitaker was the fist man to decisively beat him), former / future world champions Roger Mayweather, Freddie Pendleton, Jorge Paez and Juan Nazario, and surely there's a claim that Whitaker actually beat a better calibre than Roberto? Granted, Leonard's top tier of Lightweight wins (Welsh, Tendler, Kilbane, White, Kansas etc) takes some beating, but given that Whitaker didn't have the luxury of the No Decision rule to hide behind, and seldom lost a round at the weight, I'd say he did more than enough to gatecrash the party at the top of the 135 lb pile.

The captain made another excellent point in our aforementioned debate, which was how few men have had long, imperious and dominant reigns in two of the original eight weight classes. While Pea may have done the body of his best work at Lightweight, his Welterweight reign is also one which commands real consideration. The fight in which he won WBC and lineal recognition at 147 lb is a personal favourite of mine, against James 'Buddy' McGirt, himself an excellent operator who'd given a masterclass against Simon Brown not long before. Whitaker-McGirt I was a real high quality affair with some superb boxing from both men; I'd go so far as to say that McGirt's perfomance that night would have troubled most Welterweights in history. Let's not forget that this was in McGirt's backyard, too, a bold step considering McGirt's reported ties with the Certo crime family and the fact that most judges always seemed to be looking for an excuse to rip Whitaker off.

I think part of the reason why Whitaker is still, in my mind, underrated to an extent is due to his opposition being underrated, too. Ramirez, Julio Cesar Vasquez (against whom Whitaker made a very impressive pit stop at 154 lb to pick up the WBA belt), McGirt and, to a lesser extent, Nelson have never quite received the recognition that their very considerable achievements warrant, and as such people tend to underestimate just how good a list of wins Whitaker has on his record.

There's also the theory that his back-foot style, built around that incredible, jangling defence I mentioned earlier, was seen as a little too negative and lightweight (pardon the pun) for some to consider him one of the very greatest fighters we've seen, which is unfortunate. There was so much more to him than just making opponents miss in a style which was, at times, edging on the comical. He had a superb jab, full of snap and ruthlessly accurate. He had a great workrate for a back-foot boxer and, while not a big puncher, was deceptively aggressive with what he did throw. When forced to work on the inside, he more than held his own.

As if handing his main rival for pound for pound supremacy (not just at the time, but in the era as a whole) in Julio Cesar Chavez a boxing lesson, only to be the victim of a rank injustice when the fight was announced as a draw wasn't enough, Whitaker performed with great honour against two modern greats in De la Hoya and Trinidad despite being clearly past his best (in the case of Trinidad, he was an inactive thirty-five year old by then). I'd still say that Pea was perhaps unlucky to lose the decision and his Welterweight title against Oscar, no mean feat considering their respective conditions by 1997.

The more I think about it, the more I believe that Whitaker belongs not only in the high echelons of the sport, but in the very, very highest ones. The cusp of a top twenty place I (and many others) used to bestow upon him is surely not enough. The equal, or better still the superior, of the Leonards (both Benny and Ray), Roberto Duran, Eder Jofre and Gene Tunney? Absolutely. I'm just sorry it's taken me a while to fully appreciate that. For me, there isn't a Lightweight in history who beats Pea more often than he loses to him - I genuinely do believe that. I'd care to wager that such a statement translates pretty well up to the 147 lb weight class, too.

Talk of who was the greatest fighter in the last thirty years often revolves around Floyd Mayweather, Manny Pacquiao, Julio Cesar Chavez, Roy Jones Jr and Bernard Hopkins - but surely Sweet Pea should have that honour wrapped up, shouldn't he?

Thanks for reading, fellas, and be sure to fire away with your own opinions if you like. Cheers.

Pernell Whittaker should be in the top 10 all time great lists...After Floyd Mayweather he is the greatest boxer in the last 30 years.

Lets not forget after being way past his best he gave De La Hoya a run for his money in a fight that could have gone either way...His record should only have 2 or 3 losses that came at the end of his career.

His schooling of Chavez is one of the best performances I have ever seen...Great article Chris.

Great post Chris.

Personally a big fan of Sweet Pea.

His ability and movement was incredible.

In his fight against ODLH there is a part of the fight where Oscar just can't get near him. The smile on Oscar's face where he realises he has thrown about 10 punches that were not even close shows a level of respect.

Sweet Pea with power would have been something else but it would have probably taken away from his skills rather than adding to it if he had.

Great article Chris.

The problem with Sweet Pea is not a boxing one but rather a personality issue. In terms of boxing I'd have him p4p (skill and talent wise) ahead of Paq, Bhop and JCC, equal to Floyd and a tad below RJJ. The problem is that his style was just not exciting for me and many others it seems. Floyd has the same effect but floyd has the mouth and bombast which Pernell didn't and that elevates his standings to perhaps a level he doesn't deserve (subjective).

Btw I had Pernell winning against Oscar.

The Oscar fight was a strange one, Huw. If I can aim a slight criticism at Whitaker in that bout, it's that he spent too much time making Oscar miss. His workrate had dropped by 1997 - it had taken him a long time to burst in to action against Hurtado a few months before, for instance - but if he'd have stepped on the gas a little more, he'd have surely got the nod, or at least a bigger wave of sympathy had the decision remained as it was. Oscar, no disprespect intended, hit nothing but thin air for the most part.

I wouldn't say that an Oscar win was a disgrace (I had it a draw, which was perhaps the fairest result) as it was a tough fight to score in parts, but I'd say the margins he was awarded the win by were awful. Typically, Whitaker was always going to have his work cut out to get on the right side of the judges that night.

Very little to add Chris beyond saying it has made me want to revisit the subject myself and watch him in action. Would guess the one thing that perhaps unjustly but inevitably counts against him is Whitaker for all his sublime defensive ability did not always make for exciting viewing, appreciate as fans we can all appreciate his work, but appreciating it and clutching a fighter to our hearts are not always the same thing. Shouldn't be the case that a fighter is forgotten or downgraded on these criteria but we would be kidding ourselves if we said otherwise.

I've read plenty about Sweat Pea to know he was great and seen a few videos of him but not many, manly due to the view of many that whilst he was great he was a bit dull!

I should watch more but there is a huge list of older fights and fighters I plan to watch but just never get round to it!

Depends what you look for in fights...Boxing is about hit and not getting hit.

I always enjoy techinical and skill fighters over all out brawl fighters.

Maybe I'm odd, judging by the comments above, but I found him exciting to watch and truly enjoyed seeing him evade punches.

Very true, Rowley, and similar to the point I made regarding the Duran comparison. Both were very, very dominant at Lightweight, but in different ways; Duran dominated by ripping in to his opponent with terrifying intensity and often delivering a gruelling stoppage or knockout, whereas Whitaker dominated by picking his shots, avoiding needless exchanges and using his brain more than brawn. It's obvious which method most boxing fans are more likely to remember or be seduced by, even if we can appreciate that great fighters come in a range of different styles.

But a genuine question; what other man of Whitaker's size (or a similar one) could box so many rounds against Ramirez, Nelson, Chavez, McGirt and De la Hoya, and get hit cleanly as few times as Pea did? I'm not sure there is anyone else, and I say that knowing full well how fabulous the likes of Mayweather and Locche are / were in the defence department.

Super article, Chris.

Sorting out the lightweights is a monumental task in itself, and I find p4p lists nigh impossible. Too many great fighters, too many differing styles, margins too thin at the highest level, and the very real possibility that we could, quite legitimately, have anything up to a ten way tie for some places, all contribute to my getting myself into knots every time I try it.

One thing, though, is beyond doubt and that is that Whitaker is an outstanding candidate in either category and may even be what you say he is - the best lightweight of all time, ( at the moment I have him behind Duran and Leonard but ahead of Gans, ) and a top ten p4per.

You've whetted my appetite to go watch him again, too.

This (very good) thread inspired me to watch a highlight reel on youtube.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rw1t2yAK_wU

I realise the soundtrack won't be everybody's taste, jeff, but there was some good footage there, including some odd behind-the-back punch at around the 2 minute mark.

Top stuff.

sodhat wrote:Maybe I'm odd, judging by the comments above, but I found him exciting to watch and truly enjoyed seeing him evade punches.

Have you seen some of the Nicolino Locche stuff on youtube??

TopHat24/7 wrote:

sodhat wrote:Maybe I'm odd, judging by the comments above, but I found him exciting to watch and truly enjoyed seeing him evade punches.

Have you seen some of the Locce stuff on youtube??

One of my all time favourites, TopHat.

That guy was an absolute genius.

Il Gialloblu wrote:This (very good) thread inspired me to watch a highlight reel on youtube.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rw1t2yAK_wU

I realise the soundtrack won't be everybody's taste, jeff, but there was some good footage there, including some odd behind-the-back punch at around the 2 minute mark.

Top stuff.

Great clip and I love that punch, did very little but got to love the showmanship of it! Still wish Steele had decided the Chavez fight differently

Strong argument for him there. Only problem is thats its so subjective and fine margins at the top sooner or later someone will make an argument for someone else!

I would agree with your point he deserves higher than outskirts of top 20 man. I would consider him maybe a 8-15 kind of bracket. I dont really have a defined top 10 or 20 list. Dont really see the point. But I have 6/7 guys that I think are certs for top 10 status under my own personal kind of rating criteria. Outside of that I would have him in the bracket of another group of fighters vying for the other slots.

Probably couldnt see him as a top 5 contender, but outside that I couldnt complain to much if hes ranke anywhere from 6-15. Lower than that, your probably right is doing him an injustice. But whenever I list these fighters mentally theres always someone I forget about and I end up having 16/17 "certs" for only 15 places.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

sodhat wrote:Maybe I'm odd, judging by the comments above, but I found him exciting to watch and truly enjoyed seeing him evade punches.

Have you seen some of the Nicolino Locche stuff on youtube??

No but judging by your recommendation, and Windy's endorsement I think I will do

Try this one, sodhat :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LEKHMUCh8k

The picture quality is abysmal, but Locche's skill makes up for it.

You'll love Locche if you enjoyed Whitaker, Sodhat. He had about as much footwork as a statue at times, but his upper body movement and ability to read his opponent was like something from another world. Some fighters can make defensive boxing easy on the eye, but not many can make it in to entertainment - Locche did, however.

Windy, you're right about the Lightweights. Certainly a claim can be made that it's the best division of the lot. I used to have Duran and Leonard a mile out ahead of everyone, with the rest simply scrapping for a distant bronze. A closer examination may still see them as my top two, but if so, it won't be by anything like the distance I used to imagine.

HumanWindmill wrote:Try this one, sodhat :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LEKHMUCh8k

The picture quality is abysmal, but Locche's skill makes up for it.

Thanks Windy, I can't get Youtube at (what used to be...) work, but I'll watch this during the evening I'm sure

You're welcome, mate.

I believe you will be amazed and laugh your socks off at the same time.

I certainly did.

Always good to see someone come round to my point of view Chris. Most sensible objective people do eventually

I think there's a few reasons why he gets undersold a) style, b) defining fights... only jcc really in terms of atgs and nelson/odh of the next tier... and for nelson he had all the advantages. c) split weights... where do you pick him?... Imo hes probably the best light welter in history... but he never fought at the weight. As a lightweight, arguably he didn't stick around long enough to challenge duran/leonard as kings of the division... as a welter (above his best weight imo) his record is exceptional but there weren't quite the names around of the eras before and after.

None of it is his fault, but its why he slips through the net a fair bit, and why its hard for people to have him at the very very top.

Whitaker often gets compared with Mayweather due to similar defensive mastery. But say Mayweather were to retire after beating Cotto (even without facing Pacquiao). As it stands there would people have him above Whitaker, and therefore by extension a dead cert top 10 man? Who would people say has the more impressive ledger, and who would people say was more talented?

On both counts I would probably lean towards Mayweather. Defensively theres not much in it but I think Mayweathers greater adaptability and variety gives him the edge.

Record wise, Mayweather has the obvious unbeaten tag. He was probably not as dominant as Whitaker was in any of his weight classes, I think its close in terms of quality of opposition beaten, and Mayweather has the edge in winning titles in more weight classes. Can see some people preferring the more dominant Whitaker, especially at lightweight. But think overall Id lean towards Mayweather.

Be interested to hear what others think because mentally I have always thought that Pacquaio was neccessary for Mayweathers claim to to a top ten spot. But if we extend that to Whitakers claim to belong there then even without the Pacquiao fight would people rank him above Whitaker?

therein lies the rub manos, that 'top 10' is obviously crowded with talent. Personally, i always had sweet p in the 10-15 range and think mayweather is in there too already, but he needs the defining fight with pacquaio to nail down top 10. Given manny's recent performances, even if they do fight now, he will lose 'points' for the timing of it though.

Can't have Mayweather above Whitaker personally Manos, though of course that's only my take on it. Competition beaten is strong on both sides, but I'd contend that there is an edge with Pea; Chavez (scored a draw, but let's not pretend that those scores were a true reflection of the fight) is better than anything on Floyd's record right now. Outside of that, I'd say that Nelson, Ramirez, Vasquez, McGirt and Haugen, collectively, is probably better than Corrales, Castillo, Hatton, Mosley and Marquez too, although I could maybe accept that they're level pegging.

Longevity at the very highest level favours Mayweather, as does his unbeaten record, but not by enough to overturn the small lead I'd give Pea, particularly as I've always thought that Whitaker wins a hypothetical fight between the two.

If he gets past Cotto, Floyd closes the gap or perhaps draws level. If he adds Pacquiao to his win column and retires with the '0', I might sneak him ahead of Whitaker.

Can't knock Whitaker for skill and talent but if you want excitement this guy isn't it,Mayweather against Whitaker would have been a great cure for insomnia battle of the defensive masters.

88Chris05 wrote:Can't have Mayweather above Whitaker personally Manos, though of course that's only my take on it. Competition beaten is strong on both sides, but I'd contend that there is an edge with Pea; Chavez (scored a draw, but let's not pretend that those scores were a true reflection of the fight) is better than anything on Floyd's record right now. Outside of that, I'd say that Nelson, Ramirez, Vasquez, McGirt and Haugen, collectively, is probably better than Corrales, Castillo, Hatton, Mosley and Marquez too, although I could maybe accept that they're level pegging.

Longevity at the very highest level favours Mayweather, as does his unbeaten record, but not by enough to overturn the small lead I'd give Pea, particularly as I've always thought that Whitaker wins a hypothetical fight between the two.

If he gets past Cotto, Floyd closes the gap or perhaps draws level. If he adds Pacquiao to his win column and retires with the '0', I might sneak him ahead of Whitaker.

As it stands now I would agree that Whitaker might have the edge. But assuming Mayweather beat Cotto (Id also throw in de la Hoya for Mayweather) then theres almost nothing in it.

Whitaker has the advantage maybe in the dominance of his weight classes. But Mayweather has won titles across more weights and has had more longetivity (plus the "0").

Overall I think its close. But it was also just specualting on Mayweathers credentials because as I say, I have felt that a win over Pacquiao might have been neccessary to get Mayweather into the top 10. But even without the Pacquaio fight, if Mayweather retired after Cotto it could well be the case that he has a strong argument anyway as there would be very little in it between him and Whitaker in my view and it would really just come down to what criteria one emphasizes rather than an obvious pick.

Well Mayweather would be just inside my top twenty as it stands, Manos, pretty much equal with Chavez, for instance. A win over Cotto probably pushes him past Chavez, but still five spots or so behind Whitaker, I'd imagine. Keep in mind, of course, that the gaps separating men who rank that high are generally wafer-thin!

A win over Pacquiao would be necessary for him to usurp Pea and consolidate a top ten spot, I'd say. Whitaker did take on (and beat, in the eyes of any sane or on the level judge) his rival for the title of 'best in the world' in Chavez and established a clear superiority. Pacquiao is to Mayweather what Chavez was to Whitaker, I'd say. So without that acid test, I can only deduce that Mayweather's claims to a top ten spot are weaker than Whitaker's.

If Mayweather were to beat Cotto and then Pacquiao later this year, it'd be just about too close to call between him and Whitaker. Either way, I reckon I'd have to be finding space for both of them in my top ten, particularly if Mayweather were to retire without tasting defeat.

Personally have always rated Sweet Pea in top 15. Between 7 and 12 usually. Mayweather about the same but I readily admit its on what he can do rather than what he has done. Not much to seperate them i'd have thought although head to head i'd favour Mayweather. Agreed that should the pacquiao fight come off then Mayweather winning puts him up there on merit rather than ability. Probably about 7-8

manos de piedra wrote:Record wise, Mayweather has the obvious unbeaten tag. He was probably not as dominant as Whitaker was in any of his weight classes, I think its close in terms of quality of opposition beaten, and Mayweather has the edge in winning titles in more weight classes. Can see some people preferring the more dominant Whitaker, especially at lightweight. But think overall Id lean towards Mayweather.

Be interested to hear what others think because mentally I have always thought that Pacquaio was neccessary for Mayweathers claim to to a top ten spot. But if we extend that to Whitakers claim to belong there then even without the Pacquiao fight would people rank him above Whitaker?

Once, I'd have dismissed this out of hand and given the Floyd the position.

However, I have been suffering a similar conversion to Chris' over the past few months and slowly and gradually - I am appreciating quite how great sweet P was.

Firstly - Floyd has his "0" - whereas Pernell has losses.

Yet we look closer - and actually - Pernell's losses came either when he was old and cocaine addled - or they were just plain robberies. It wouldn't be that unreasonable to say that it was a prime Felix Trinidad who beat Pernell.

Then we talk of opposition. I have banged the drum against Floyd's opposition being top echelon - although not as bad as D4 used to make out - it is my opinion that Pernell fought and beat a better class of opponent.

Stylistically? I like watching the Kbros - so I'm unlikely to find sweet P boring am I?

Adaptability and versatility? It is my opinion that Pernell is already a top 10-15 p4p all time fighter. Time will tell as to whether Floyd's career matches up to Sweet P's. Floyd, especially Floyd mk II has some decent wins - but Pernell has some great ones - JCC, McGirt, prime ODLH (yes - I'm counting those fights the way they should have gone).

Maybe Pernell struggles because he was shafted so often in high profile affairs?

I'd have loved to see a primed and fit McGirt fight Pernell. He entered their fights with severely damaged left shoulder. A fighter who is criminally overlooked imo. Anyway, enough of the diversion.

Whitaker was voted in at 17 on our rankings which I think is about right when considering the men above him, my top 11/12 are pretty much set in stone then you have the likes of Ross and Moore who for me have to be above Sweet Pea. At lightweight I think it's the wins over De Jesus and Buchanan that set Duran aside from the rest, beyond that it's very even, Whitaker comes in at 5 behind Gans, Williams, Duran and Leonard.

Mayweather and Whitaker are very even at the moment, the exact positions could change on any given day but a Martinez, Pacquiao or even possibly an Alvarez win as well as Cotto would elevate him clearly above.

I wouldnt really count the losses to heavily agaist Whitaker. I wouldnt really agree with counting the de la Hoya fight as a Whitaker victory either. Think we are more into the realms of "capable of going either way" than robbery for that one and Im reluctant to rewrite records unless its a pretty convincing robbery. Chavez and Ramirez no arguments, but I dont think de la Hoya belongs in that bracket.

In terms of opposition, I think its close. If Mayweather comes through Cotto then I wouldnt argue it too much either way. Im just speculating if Mayweather was to retire after that how would he measure up to Whitaker. Id have it pretty close overall.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Whitaker was voted in at 17 on our rankings which I think is about right when considering the men above him, my top 11/12 are pretty much set in stone then you have the likes of Ross and Moore who for me have to be above Sweet Pea.

Can see a case for Ross to be equal with or slightly higher than Whitaker, but not Moore.

Longevity (which is important, of course) aside, I don't really see where Moore holds any edges over Whitaker. Given the historical strength of the divisions, I'd say that Whitaker's Lightweight reign is fairly comparable to Moore's at 175 lb, but Whitaker didn't stuggle with fighters he should have been getting past with ease, whereas Moore did. Would add, also, that collectively speaking Pea's Lightweight victims can easily match up to Durelle, Johnson, Olson and Maxim, the men Moore beat in his title tenure. Of course, Moore has wins over BMR men, too, but his record was also a little patchy against them on the flip side. There comes a time where genial consistency has to outstrip some wins that are perhaps more eye catching, but which are balanced by a few defeats, too.

And then of course we have Whitaker's exploits at higher weights. Now I'm not saying that Moore achieved nothing north of 175 lb - far from it, in fact. But Whitaker certainly performed better against the naturally bigger men than Moore did.

Love old Archie to death, but don't think he can be ahead of Whitaker.

Moore officially had 219 fights, when he was fighting such a high calibre of opponent over and over again he's going to end up losing the odd fight here and there with the majority being against hall of fame opposition. Being the number two fighter in that era of light heavyweight boxing is a mightily impressive feat for me. Think it's a little harsh to judge him on his title tenure as he was the uncrowned champion for years prior to beating Maxim.

Understand your points, Ghosty, but I can't help but be swayed by the fact that Whitaker was dominant against the very best men he faced in a way that Moore simply wasn't. True, Archie was campaigning at a time when the best in the world were meeting with great frequency, but it's not as if Whitaker was looking good against patsies; Chavez and Nelson, without doubt, are easily worthy of 'great' status and Whitaker handed them both something of a boxing lesson.

Even if I did fall on the other side of the line and take Moore's 175 lb career as being better than Whitaker's 135 lb one, surely Pea's achievements at the higher weights are enough to turn the tide? No shame in losing to Marciano, of course, but I can't really see Whitaker failing a test relative to the one Moore faced in Patterson.

Nelson and Chavez were greats without any doubt, there isn't much in it but would give the slight edge to Moore. I'm happy to discount Charles getting the better of Moore as he was simply a class above everyone else even in a talent stacked era, aside from that it was only really Burley who got the better of him. A relative test to Patterson for Whitaker would have been at middleweight in my opinion as Moore started out a middleweight and a very good one at that.

Great article Chris, Whitaker ranks ahead of Jones Jnr, Mayweather and Pacquiao in my opinion, problem for Pernell was he was not was not a big puncher and his best work is split over two decades, so he never really helped wave boxings popularity flag by being its 'Golden Boy' or 'Sugar man', he just casually slipped and dipped his way through quality fighters, putting on exemplary performances - his performance against GregHaugen was utterly brilliant and a favourite of mine.

The time he truly did make big news, or got the kind of attention he deserved, was when the judges denied him of his right to take Chavez's unbeaten record

He is one of the stone pillars of Lightweight, but in the higher weights beckoned bigger fights, so he continued past his physical prime up until he arguably beat Oscar while the latter was in his 'Glory years' - that can never be understated.

He is a top 20 p4p fighter of all time in my opinion.