Some questions for you guys about Pernell Whitaker

[kg0208]

Originally Posted by McGrain

I have him t #20...I don't think you can have him in the ten...can you make a case for his being above Ali?

I'm not sure I can, but I'm not sure I can't.

Ali is a bit romanticized to me. I have him as my #2 HW all time. I have Whitaker as tied for my #1 LW ever. But he is also a 4 weight champion, and IMO every bit as skilled as Ali.

I think they may both be top 10.

[McGrain]

Originally Posted by kg0208

I'm not sure I can, but I'm not sure I can't.

Ali is a bit romanticized to me. I have him as my #2 HW all time. I have Whitaker as tied for my #1 LW ever. But he is also a 4 weight champion, and IMO every bit as skilled as Ali.

I think they may both be top 10.

Really? You have Louis at #1? You surprise me, I think Ali is close but clear #1 at HW - if that is not your position, I can see a case. But things get very tight and clear at the top of the list. Anyway, if they were both top ten pound for pound, which three would you leave out from the following -


Sugar Ray Robinson
Sam Langford
Henry Armstrong
Harry Greb
Ezzard Chrles
Willie Pep
Roberto Duran
Mickey Walker
Bob Fitzsimmons
Joe Louis

[kg0208]

Originally Posted by McGrain

Really? You have Louis at #1? You surprise me, I think Ali is close but clear #1 at HW - if that is not your position, I can see a case. But things get very tight and clear at the top of the list. Anyway, if they were both top ten pound for pound, which three would you leave out from the following -


Sugar Ray Robinson
Sam Langford
Henry Armstrong
Harry Greb
Ezzard Chrles
Willie Pep
Roberto Duran
Mickey Walker
Bob Fitzsimmons
Joe Louis

Yeah, I have Louis over Ali, but favor Ali H2H over Louis.

I honestly don't know. That's the reason I asked the question about Whitaker. I don't know much about Langford or Walker. I know a little about Fitz.

Is Charles greater than Whitaker?

[McGrain]

Originally Posted by kg0208

Yeah, I have Louis over Ali, but favor Ali H2H over Louis.

I honestly don't know. That's the reason I asked the question about Whitaker. I don't know much about Langford or Walker. I know a little about Fitz.

Is Charles greater than Whitaker?

Yeah, Charles has to be above Whitaker, I'd say he has to be above Ali, too. Imagine Ali beating Louis three times in three fights? Because that's what Charles did to probably the second greatest LHW of all time, Archie Moore. He also has wins over ATG fighters at MW, including a pair over Charley Burley, as well as a win over Walcott, a great HW - he is probably a top 20 HW of all time

MW - Not ATG but ATG wins
LHW - #1 or #2 inarguably
HW - ATG top 20

And in addition he has one of the best resumes in the history of the sport, ever - p4p, I don't think he can be below Whitaker.

I think, 12-22 is Whitaker's range, with the lower end (where I have him) being harder to justify.

Would you always rate him above Jones?

[kg0208]

Originally Posted by McGrain

Yeah, Charles has to be above Whitaker, I'd say he has to be above Ali, too. Imagine Ali beating Louis three times in three fights? Because that's what Charles did to probably the second greatest LHW of all time, Archie Moore. He also has wins over ATG fighters at MW, including a pair over Charley Burley, as well as a win over Walcott, a great HW - he is probably a top 20 HW of all time

MW - Not ATG but ATG wins
LHW - #1 or #2 inarguably
HW - ATG top 20

And in addition he has one of the best resumes in the history of the sport, ever - p4p, I don't think he can be below Whitaker.

I think, 12-22 is Whitaker's range, with the lower end (where I have him) being harder to justify.

Would you always rate him above Jones?

He is ahead of Jones IMO.

[sweet_scientist]

Originally Posted by McGrain

Wonderful observation. I've really enjoyed your thoughts on Whitaker. It's nice to talk to such a knowledgable poster about a fighter I'm becoming more interested in. I can feel you putting the peices together for me in relation to the footage i've watched this week.

Hey, I'm a nuthugger, but there's a good deal of truth to what I say.

On another subject we spoke briefly about your half-planned top 200 and Macho Man's place on the list. Hypothetically, where do you think the cut off point for true greatness comes on your list? That is, where, on a top 100 (or 200) do you think you would be looking at names of wonderful, cracking fighters but no longer truly great ones?

Good question Mac. Speaking fairly generally, I think there is about 120 fighters or so that I'd unequivocally call great and then there's a gray area of arguable greats for about 50 or so fighters. Then there is a certainly not great but excellent fighters bracket which probably encapsulates about 50 guys as well.

Of course, even amongst the greats though there are lesser and greater greats so to speak, and simply labeling them great doesn't really distinguish between the levels of greatness that fighters possess. So for example, Lew Tendler and Roberto Duran are both greats, but one is clearly distinguished from the other in terms of how great they are.

[sweet_scientist]

Originally Posted by jyuza

Amazing post as expected. It is good to see my fellows from the classic section.

Cheers mate. Welcome to the site by the way, I'm glad you've made the trek over.