Comparisons between FMJ and Whitaker

On another thread, I was interested in azania and Truss's take on FMJ, as both bemoaned the fact that a lot of people don't give Floyd Mayweather his dues as an all-time p for p top tenner. I don't necessarily disagree with them, since I've got both Floyd and Pernell Whitaker on the fringe of the top 10 as things stand, but can Floyd really rank so far ahead of Pea?

Consider that, like Floyd, Whitaker scarcely lost a round of any fight until into his veteran years (I'm obviously excluding the myopic scoring of the Ramirez and Chavez fights). Whitaker ruled two bona fide divisions with a rod of iron for ages, went up and won a title at light-middle and was generally the number one boxer of his era. And yet, if he is mentioned at all these days, it is with a shrug and a "couldn't draw flies" kind of witticism as an accompaniment.

Is this fair? Are people really being consistent? If Mayweather is a "nailed on" top tenner, surely Whitaker can't be much behind, if at all, bearing in mind achievements and quality of opposition. If Mayweather were to get beaten in a fight in his late 30s, would that make any difference to his status relative to Whitaker's? Or is the fact that Mayweather courts controversy and Whitaker went about his business without a lot of fanfare the decisive difference in assessing their respective legacies?

You make strong and valid points........

I think a lot of it has to do with personality and entertainment value Captain.....

Whittaker is vastly underrated but for the most part of his career stunk the place out.......apart from his win over Nazario (brutal ko) I can't really remember him exciting me (although Haugen wasn't bad!!) Missed a chance against Azumah to shine!!

He also wasn't a big personality and often fought in the shadow of other Duva stablemates such as Evander, Breland and even Taylor!!

Could've done with a Rosario, Camacho or Chavez fight earlier in his career which might have happened had the disgrace in Paris never happened!!!

If Dempsey stunk would he be ranked as high???

Unfortunately as you know fighters aren't just ranked on achievement and skill...............

As for your article I think you're spot on...

Both top 10ish for me Floyd for sure Whittaker on the edge...

Both certainly in the top 15 for me and on a given day, could make my top 10. Hard to split them on talent - Whitaker probably the slightly better defensive fighter and demonstrated that against the kind of offensive masters that Mayweather doesn't have on his record. Mayweather certainly the better offensive fighter (a talent he's recently started to demonstrate again after neglecting it somewhat since he moved up from super-feather.

Probably have Whitaker just ever so slightly ahead because of the way he dominated the two main divisions he fought in. However, Floyd's weight jumping exploits are just about enough to make it very close indeed.

Good points, captain. Whitaker has become a real favourite of mine in recent times, and I've often found myself wondering why it took me so long to appreciate just what the man accomplished and how utterly brilliant he was. During your hiatus from the boards, in fact, I've written two or three articles concerning Whitaker in some way, so the others lads on here are probably sick of me talking about him!

For me, however, Whitaker actually ranks ahead of Floyd as it stands, though it's not beyond possibility that Floyd could reverse that in the future. Dominance against their respective contemporaries is largely equal, however I think Pea has a slight edge in opposition beaten; the boxing lessons he handed out to Nelson and Chavez (particularly the latter) are glorious high points which can't be matched, as of yet, by any entry on Mayweather's ledger. There aren't a great deal of men who have had long, distinguished reigns as the top man (as opposed to just a mere titlist) in two of the original weight classes, but Whitaker fits that bill and, while it's seen as boxing blasphemy by some, I don't think it's far fetched at all to suggest that Pea may well have been the greatest Lightweight of the lot, even edging out the likes of Duran and Benny.

I've always fancied Whitaker to beat Mayweather too, though that's besides the point in a lot of ways. I think the way to edge out Floyd might be to beat him at his own game, make him try to set a pace and chase his man for a change. The thing is, there was a lot more to Whitaker than just his famed defensive genius. His workrate, especially at his preferred 135 lb, was much better than given credit for. He had a superb inside game. His jab could pin anyone down. As well as outboxing him, he totally outworked Chavez, the quintessential pressure fighter, as well - I can't see Mayweather doing that, though he'd still have beaten Julio all the same.

Whitaker at or around tenth spot for me, Mayweather not far behind at all, inside the top fifteen.

Whittaker was a terrific boxer. But he was the type I'd rather read about than watch. Whenever I find myself watching some of his fights, I often fast forward it.

He has the stye for radio.

I suspect that's the primary reason as to why he's never quite got the full recognition which his talents and achievements deserve, Az. He certainly didn't get them during his career, anyhow. When you can deliver a virtual shut out against a capable world titlist like Paez or Pineda without taking a clean shot, but then are greeted with a chorus of boos and jeers when you climb the ring post and raise your arms in victory, there's definitely something amiss.

I actually think that Whitaker was sensational to watch, albeit in a very different way to a lot of other fighters. Making top-quality, proven fighters miss once is one thing - to make fighters of Chavez's, De la Hoya's and Nelson's quality miss, over and over again, when throwing six or seven punch combinations is quite another.

The knack he had for making top-tier professionals look distinctly average was unbelievable.

How can you have Whittaker higher than Mayweather ????? ffs..

Mayweather has better fighters on his record...spent longer at the top......dominated over a greater poundage...

and has never lost!!

whilst I agree Whittaker is underrated...

please come on....

Sorry Chris. Pernell was highly skilled but not exciting. If I wanted to watch ballet with gloves on, I'm sure that French circus act can come up with something.

Now now, Truss - untwist those knickers! I belive I said I'd only have Whitaker a shade in front of Floyd, and also said that Mayweather may yet remedy that before he retires. So no need to take any serious umbrage with how I rate them, surely?

Longevity favours Floyd, I'll certainly agree with that. Even allowing for his long spells of inactivity here and there, bedazzling Hernandez for his first world title in 1998 and then, fourteen years later, getting past Cotto with a fine performance for his latest strap is remarkable to say the least.

Not so sure that Mayweather has the better names on his record, however. Not much in it, but Chavez (a 'draw' on the record, but not to anyone with a working pair of eyes) is better than anything on Mayweather's record, for me. Nelson on top of that and, moreover, this was a Nelson who still had some defining moments ahead of him; handing Fenech his first defeat in brutal style, hammering Ruelas after a long lull in his career etc. Not to diminish Floyd's wins over the likes of Oscar, Mosley etc, but it's entirely reasonable to suggest that their tanks were running very low by the time Floyd faced them.

Whitaker can't boast the '0', of course, but how important is that really? I'm sure most would agree that, if we're sensible about it, Whitaker didn't lose until he was a thirty-five year old, highly inactive (he'd not boxed in almost a year and a half), drug-addled shadow of his former self - and even then, it took a fighter as good as a peak Felix Trinidad to do the job. Whitaker was never pushed at something like his best weight the way Mayweather was against Castillo, and to be honest, Mayweather was slightly fortunate to escape with his win in that fight in any case.

On the whole there's not much in it at all, but Pea has the smallest of edges. Whitaker the better pure physical specimen and talent, Mayweather the better ring general and tactician. No issue with anyone placing Floyd higher, as long as they acknowledge that, whichever one you have in front, the other must still be very much in their rear view mirror.

Pendleton, Paez, Jones, Haugen, featherweight Nelson, Ramirez, Nazario, .......whooppy do...

All guys I'd pick Bramble to walk past...

Come on there is no way Whittaker can be ranked higher...

1. Was beaten.....
2. Longevity..
3. Mayweather beat better fighters..

You don't like floyd I get it....

Then again you picked Tunney to beat RJJ....

So I'm wasting my time...

Suppose watching whittaker run like a thief against Oscar is a black mark also..

The guy Floyd beat at 154...

What are you basing me apparently "not liking" Mayweather on? I'm a hell of a lot kinder to him than many others on here are. Don't like his persona, but I doubt you could be too fond of him in that respect, either. As a boxer, though, he's absolutely fantastic.

Mayweather beating the better fighters is a matter of opinion, and I've given my reasons as to why I think Whitaker has the better names on his CV.

To be honest, there were long periods of their fight in which a past his best Whitaker contained an absolute peak Oscar better than an absolute peak Mayweather contained a past his best Oscar. In fact, Whitaker actually carried the fight to De la Hoya far more than people seem to remember. From a technical aspect he had De la Hoya beaten all ends up and it was only his lack of work rate which cost him the decision - even then, he was still unlucky to lose his title on such a verdict, I think.

There are plenty who'll tell you that Mayweather was beaten first time out against Castillo, and this was a young Floyd at something like his best weight. When you find a similar case for Whitaker, let me know.

Didn't floyd break his hand in the first couple of rounds in that fight?

There is no one on Whittaker's record that Floyd wouldn't beat....

However whilst I can see Floyd beating DelaHoya, Curry and even mccallum and Hearns!!

Just can't see Whittaker doing the same..

Floyd was a 130 pounder to Whittaker's 135......when they both became claimants..

For me this say's it all..

I have to say that I couldn't see Floyd or Pea so much as fighting either of McCallum or Hearns, much less beating them. DLH, a weight jumper of similar size to FMJ, is a different case entirely. Had Pernell been a little closer to his peak, I'd have had no doubts that he would have beaten Oscar at least as handily as Floyd managed against a husk of a DLH.

Floyd probably would have beaten Pea's opponents. Against which of Floyd's do you imagine that Pea would have struggled? Gatti? Marquez? Ortiz? Corrales? Mosley? Hatton, God help us?

Not more than a ciggy paper's width between the two greats, I wouldn't think.

If Curry can box mccallum's ears off before getting stiffed.....have no doubts that Mayweather can confuse him also...

As for Hearns.. Leonard got to him......

I mentioned DelaHoya Captain.....who always has Whittaker running like a thief...

nice try though..

If you see Floyd winning against the likes of McCallum, Hearns and Curry but Whitaker losing to them, then fine - that's your opinion. However, I don't think that's much of a way of deciding who was greater. Why should Mayweather be given extra credit for something he's not done? Why should Whitaker's standing suffer for that same reason?

Easier to deal in facts and what they actually did do.

I'd agree that everyone who Pernell beat would likely lose to Floyd, but I'm fairly sure we could say the same in reverse, if we're talking peak for peak. I tend to think that a lot of their best wins are comparable; given that it was a past his best Mosley which Floyd faced, I'd say you can tie that in with Whitaker's victories over McGirt. Castillo is to Floyd what Ramirez is to Pea. Ortiz to Nazario, Marquez to Nelson, Corrales to Uncle Roger - all of them, more of less, can be just about paired.

But consider this; like Mayweather and Pacquiao have been, Whitaker and Chavez were, for a long while, considered the two best in the sport, pound for pound, and engaged in a dance around and towards each other to see just who was the best. Whitaker took that challenge and clearly proved his superiority, against a genuine all-time great. As of yet, Floyd hasn't managed to extend that courtesy to the millions who've wanted to see him against Pacquiao and, even if he does at a later date, it's come too late. And that's a key factor in why I just can't have Floyd ahead of Pea just yet.

Would anybody pick Trinidad to beat Floyd...I know I wouldn't!!

Certainly wouldn't run like a thief against him that's for sure!!

One thing you could rely on with Pernell is that If someone could bang... it would be like watching Mo Farrah in the 5,000..

Because he stunk so much...I even had Mcgirt winning the first fight..

after all at least he wanted one...

However sarcasm aside he was a great technician but please none of this stupid rating over Floyd...

longevity....undefeated......better fighters on record...

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Would anybody pick Trinidad to beat Floyd...I know I wouldn't!!

Certainly wouldn't run like a thief against him that's for sure!!

One thing you could rely on with Pernell is that If someone could bang... it would be like watching Mo Farrah in the 5,000..

Because he stunk so much...I even had Mcgirt winning the first fight..

after all at least he wanted one...

However sarcasm aside he was a great technician but please none of this stupid rating over Floyd...

longevity....undefeated......better fighters on record...

Wouldn't pick Trinidad over any version of Whitaker which wasn't totally washed up, either. As I'm sure you wouldn't.

As for Whitaker's "running", well, God forbid a fighter fights to their strengths to win. Besides, it's not as if Mayweather hasn't provided us with his fair share of stinkers, either; Baldomir, Castillo, N'Dou etc. I'm not a fan of deducting points from a fighter just because their styles don't provide thrills.

As I've said before, I take no issue with anyone placing Floyd higher. The two of them are very close. But saying that placing Whitaker higher is "stupid" really says more about you than me, I'm afraid.

My point is Whittaker runs like a thief against babyface....everytime they fight...

A casual review of pernell's record shows his aversion to facing punchers??

No Rosario?? ..

DelaHoya were two out of a handful of fighters who could hurt him...and he wasn't interested...

Good debate though...Give you an A for effort!!

The only criteria you can have for even putting him in the same location of Floyd is cleaning up a crud division......Hernandez, Paez, Jones, Nazario, Haugen.....

and I say so what.......Mcgirt was a decent win but hey Taylor's was better..

Ramirez, Pineda, Trinidad and the like were all serious punchers, Truss. Hell, even Vasquez at Light-Middleweight could whack. Don't think too many career Lightweights would have fancied that job, particularly after he'd only just previously wiped the floor with Winky.

Plenty of genuine punchers who Pea accounted for, I'd say. As for Rosario, well I've no doubts that Whitaker would have taken him on, but he got himself knocked out by Nazario and, as such, that's who Whitaker fought to complete his clean sweep of the Lightweight belts.

If you're going to downplay thre likes of Haugen, Paez, Nazario etc as "crud" then fine, though I'd disagree. But at least be consistent, Trussy! If those names are crud, then surely you have no business mentioning the likes of Corrales, Ortiz and Gatti as quality wins for Mayweather?

Truss, you haven't said who you would pick head to head- I assume that you would go for Mayweather?
for my money I rate Whitaker the higher by the thickness of a cigarette paper, mostly on the basis that I prefer to see fighter dominate a weight class rather than jump from weight to weight, and ESP if they can unify couple of titles whilst they are at it.
head to head I'd pick Whitaker, solely as I think his unorthodoxy might be the thing that Floyd would struggle with.
Either both fantastic fighters that would have held their own in any era.

I'd pick Floyd to win. Both had/have great defensive skills, but Floyd is incredibly accurate. That swings it for me.

The fight would probably be a snoozefest.

Or alternatively, az, a technical masterclass by both men, showcasing the very best of the Noble Art.

Depending on your preference.

I think a head to head match up between the pair would be just about as close as their respective pound for pound standings.

I've rolled this out before, but my contention is that Whitaker is the better pure talent of the two. Very little in it, but Pea had freakish speed, reflexes and powers of anticipation which have seldom, if ever, been matched in the sport. He also had an underrated body attack, something which Floyd has never really shown to a great degree. Whitaker had the hard-as-nails Ramirez wincing each time he went to the body, busted up Rodriguez with those hooks to the ribs etc.

On the other hand, I think Mayweather is the better tactician of the pair, again by a similarly small margin. He's a ring general extraordinaire, the master of making every punch count. That's not to say that Whitaker didn't carry out plenty of sound game plans to a tee, because he did, many times over. But the fight with Oscar is telling (past his best by then, of course, but still worth reading in to). He had Oscar beaten all ends up in a technical sense, but made the fight closer than it needed be by failing to press home his advantage, and not making Oscar pay each time he made him miss. It was a similar story in the first Rivera fight, too.

And then, there was that perplexing habit he had of clowing away the final round; Chavez, De la Hoya, McGirt I....Sometimes it wasn't costly, but whatever the weather, such a misjudgement against Mayweather could well be the difference between a decision won and a decision lost.

If they were both at their absolute best, I'd back Whitaker by the smallest of margins (imagine, if you will, something like a 115-113, 114-114, 115-114 majority decision) due to him having more appreciable dimensions to his game from the outset, but it's a horrible one to call.

captain carrantuohil wrote:Or alternatively, az, a technical masterclass by both men, showcasing the very best of the Noble Art.

Depending on your preference.

Absolutely. But I reckon for talent to be best showcased, opposite styles are best suited.

We all rate boxers by different criteria.

To rate Floyd or Sweet Pea against others, I would need to make multiple top10 lists, something like a lists for:

1)Skill (as it says on the tin)

2)Achievement (longevity, opposition, etc)

3)Effectiveness (where power, heart and chin and engine may overcome skill. However, I wouldn't exclude skill because sweet pea and mayweather may also rank high on this list)

Then I would somehow attempt to amalgamate the lists and decide who rates where on the mythical p4p, or, as the case will prove, I wouldn't make these lists and instead just talk about them.

...because I probably don't know enough about boxers from history to make a true list.

Good points, TMM. The question, therefore, is what your gut instinct would be about a fight between the two greats (I'm taking it for granted that you're familiar with Whitaker's style and record).

I think that Chris makes a good point about Whitaker's tendency to coast just a little when he felt the job was done. This in no way excuses the historically bad decision that he received against Ramirez, for example, but he did just open the door a crack for a couple of thoroughly bad judges to perpetrate their shameful heist.

I'm not sure, though, that Mayweather-Whitaker would have been an absolute stinker. I see Mayweather as the more adaptable boxer of the two and one with enough confidence in his own ability to be the aggressor in the fight. Remember how he actually took away Hatton's trump card by ultimately outfighting him on the inside (not that I'm comparing Pea with Hatton, you understand). I think that Floyd would attempt to make Whitaker fight where he felt least comfortable.

Whether he would be successful is another matter. Whitaker never faced anyone with Mayweather's varied arsenal of hurtful punches, but Mayweather has equally never fought anyone with anything remotely resembling Pea's ability to make him miss and pay in the same exchange.

Very tight indeed, but gun to the head, I'm going to say that Floyd doesn't quite land enough. No more than a round in it, and I can't exclude the possibility of some controversial judging, but I'll take Pea by split decision.

I'm off to the midwife with the Mrs.....and then the dreaded shopping!!

I'll catch you later with my answer..

Good fortune to you both.

Thanks for the good wishes Captain. I can't wait to be a father!

Back on topic...

A fight between the two would certainly be one for the purists. I must have seen an hour’s highlight footage of sweetpea and listened to double that listening to my dad rave about him.

So, I don’t feel hugely qualified to pick a winner, but from what I’ve seen, I’d say it's evens.

Floyd might get it on the more effective offense that he's shown of late. But, without wishing to sit on the fence, I think on any given day, it would be largely dependent on the judges judging the fight rather than the boxers participating in it.

I think on any given day, it would be largely dependent on the judges judging the fight rather than the boxers participating in it.

Spot on - completely agree and would have to sympathise with the judges in having to score it.

P.S all the best for impending fatherhood. The best and most exhausting thing you'll ever do!

I take It no one is marking Whittaker down for losing to arguably the two best fighters he met and drawing with the other!!

All the best too about being a father....and you're looking forward to it...

I had my time again I'd have become a monk.....

Monk with a beefster body though!!

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I take It no one is marking Whittaker down for losing to arguably the two best fighters he met and drawing with the other!!

If Whitaker 'drew' with Chavez, then Mayweather also 'drew' with De la Hoya and Cotto, which is being generous; Pea beat Chavez more convincingly than Mayweather beat those two.

If we're going to mark Whitaker down for losing to Trinidad, then we'd better start marking Ali down for losing to Holmes, too.

Sorry but Whittaker drew with Chavez.......Just like Ali beat Norton in Yankee stadium....

and Holmes beat Witherspoon....

I'll start ranking Taylor higher for beating Chavez!!..which he did before being cheated..but then again

Doesn't wash....

Mayweather is winning at the same stage of his career as Whittaker was losing...

Like I said Mayweather has never lost so only a rose-tinter has him on a par with a guy who has.....and

Hasn't the longevity or the p4pers Floyd has on his record...

Whittaker ran like a thief against oscar....and It was nothing to do with age..

I doubt if the judges had conspired to rob Mayweather against, say, De la Hoya or Cotto and give him a draw instead of the win you'd be spouting the same theory, Truss, but hey ho.

Never denied that Mayweather's record stands Whitaker's on its head in terms of longevity, by the way. If only a rose-tinter can have Mayweather behind a man who has been beaten, then why does Ali still sit at the top of your pound for pound lists, Truss? Seems a tad inconsistent, old bean.

Have another look against Whitaker-De la Hoya, I'm sure you'll be surprised at how often it was Pea who was carrying the fight. Besides, since when did back-foot boxing and counter-punching become a symbol of such ineptitude in your book?

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Sorry but Whittaker drew with Chavez.......Just like Ali beat Norton in Yankee stadium....

and Holmes beat Witherspoon....

I'll start ranking Taylor higher for beating Chavez!!..which he did before being cheated..but then again

Doesn't wash....

Mayweather is winning at the same stage of his career as Whittaker was losing...

Like I said Mayweather has never lost so only a rose-tinter has him on a par with a guy who has.....and

Hasn't the longevity or the p4pers Floyd has on his record...

Whittaker ran like a thief against oscar....and It was nothing to do with age..

surely on that kind of thinking you must rank manny very highly for his dominance over jmm in thier trilogy??

And Marciano must rank above Ali and everyone else at heavyweight.

Don't be a complete idiot all your life..ghosty....

Mayweather has 13 years at the top......he's beaten better fighters and is unbeaten!!!!!!!

Now instead of sucking up to chris....read this post back!!..

Till you get it!!

Being undefeated isn't the be all and end all though is it Truss and Whitaker does have the grave misfortune of being on the receiving end of some terrible decisions.

I never said it was......What is the matter with you?? You're not Az so don't take me out of context...

I'm pointing out that Whittaker lostor drew to his biggest opponents at the same point in his career where Floydy is dominant...

But we do have to be slightly lenient when assessing Whitaker as he deserved the wins over all of De La Hoya, Ramirez and Chavez.

He ran like a thief against Oscar..

No way...

Grant you he was unlucky against Julio......

But hey Taylor was more unlucky and I don't give him the win either..

Come on now, Truss. The respective cases of Taylor and Whitaker aren't really the same when it comes to Julio, are they? Contentious stoppage, sure, but Chavez was at least able to put himself in to a position to win that fight. Against Whitaker, he couldn't do this. One didn't go the distance, the other did and while Chavez was able to inflict some serious damage on Taylor, he could hardly land a telling shot on Whitaker.

Anyway, Mayweather above Whitaker for you, Whitaker ever so slightly above Mayweather for me. Sound debate.

Although Pea's "running like a thief" against Oscar is going to become even more notorious than Duran being "rolled like a drunk" against Tommy if you carry on at this rate, Truss!

Truss, as I asked previously, how do you see theoretical fight between the two panning out? I except your arguement (not agree, but see your point) that Floyd should be ranked higher, but that doesn't neccessarily translate into a win head to head.

Have Julio. i said he was unlucky!!.....but i'll re-iterate Whittaker was taken by Oscar and Trinidad...and would have ran like a thief at any other time...

130-154 vs 135-147.......

greater longevity...

Better fighters on his record......

still unbeaten long past the stage in his career Whittaker wasn't...

Snap...crackle and pop.......

Theoretically.......It's hard to perceive......be a complete stinker like most of Whittaker's fights...

sweet pea may win.......depends on who is judging.....