Better Fighter: Leonard or Whitaker

Who was better?

 

Leonard

 

For the life of me I cannot see how Pea has an argument.

Definitely Leonard.

 

Leonard would run Pea out of the ring

 

I take Leonard but it's close IMO.

 

Are you Max Kellerman?


Leonard was better. Not even close.

 

Leonard easily

 

Leonard, and it isn't particularly close

 

but, but, Lomeli

 

I don't know what you guys are smoking, but this is extremely close. It's the second best lightweight vs the second best welterweight. Leonard achieved far more, but in terms of how good they were in the ring, nobody in history is 'well above' Sweet Pea.

 

The gap isn't big, but I dont think Pea can make a case as being better.

 

Exactly. It's like decisions in fights that are close but clear. Consensus is for example 115-113 although a few may have scored a couple of rounds differently. It doesn't mean it wasn't competitive, just that there's nothing much to debate.

 

Leonard. Pea was a master but Ray was that damn good. More complete than Sweet Pea.

 

Good analogy.

 

I'm with George, I disagree with the consensus. Extremely close in terms of ability I'd say. The argument for Pea is there imo, he was nigh on as good as just about anyone who ever stepped in a ring. Obviously Ray was greater in terms of achievement.

 

Leonard showed his quality on a higher level. In his title winning performance alone, he basically dominated Benitez, and if we're talking purely quality and not greatness, was Whitaker even that much better than El Radar? I don't think he was. I think he's certainly greater than Benitez, but not appreciably better.

Whitaker doesn't have an opponent in his prime comparable to prime Duran and Hearns. The best he has is Chavez (prime at 130-140, not 147) and Nelson (prime at 126-130, not at 135).

And it's highly doubtful that Pea could take 3 years off, and come back in his first fight and edge out someone as great as Hagler - faded or not.

Leonard was just better. Perhaps not by leaps and bounds, but he was a better fighter.

 

This is all based off greatness. And I'd argue that bringing up Hearns and Duran in argument for Leonard is just doing Leonard a disservice. He was losing badly to Hearns and lost to Duran. Not saying that means they don't count it anything, but it's important to remember that Leonard didn't dominate these fighters. I can't see any lightweight being so far ahead of Whitaker on points, and I'd wager Whitaker-Duran would actually be a closer fight than Duran-Leonard I was. I think Benitez is closer to Whitaker in greatness than he is in ability. Whitaker was clearly a better fighter than Wil.

Whitaker may not have ever been able to come out of a what was essentially fire years retired then beat a fighter as good as Hagler, but that's because Leonard was a greater fighter, not necessarily a better one. He maintained his 'stuff' for far longer, and I'd put that down to intangibles over than ability at their best.

I'm not disagreeing in saying that Leonard is the better fighter, but there's plenty of argument for Whitaker IMO. It's essentially an argument of offense vs defence between the second best lightweight and the second best welterweight ever, and Whitaker's defence was better than Leonard's offence.

 

The problem with these mythical match ups is that we can only compare them based on their competition since they fought in different weight classes and different eras. And based on that Leonard takes the cake and it's not even close. But if we are talking somehow shrinking Leonard to Peas best weight(Light Weight) or vice versa then I'd still take Leonard. Not just because offensively he was a more dangerous fighter but because he's arguably a proven GOAT. When people talk about the greatest the name Ali and Leonard almost always come up interchangeably. You don't often hear Pea being called the GOAT. The biggest reason was his lack of power. In order to be the very best in boxing you've got to be whole package (speed, power, chin, defense, intangibles, resume)and Leonard was definitely that. I'll go as far to say that Pea might be a bit overrated. He lost to Trinidad, lost to Dela Hoya and lost to Chavez. Some people think Pea won two of those 3 fights. And that's because his lack of power allowed his opponents to have really close fights with him. Now you could argue he won those fights until you're blue in the face but the most important people that night saw him lose. So my point is no way Leonard loses to a guy without real power. And if it was a close fight the judges still give it to Leonard.

 

Leonard has no argument for GOAT, and Whitaker never lost to Chavez.

 

Whitaker drew with Chavez on the cards ffs, he didn't lose to him. And it's not a case of some people thought Pea won, I've never come across anyone who scored it for Chavez or put a decent argument forth that he won. He lost going away on most cards that I've seen tbh, it's widely regarded as one of the worst robberies of the modern era to the point where most honest people just count it as a win for Pea. He borderline dominated the fight imo.

Whitaker was way past prime against DLH. A long way. And he was nigh on shot vs Trinidad and still managed to win some early rounds and frustrate Tito before his legs and engine gave out to the coke abuse and Trinidads monstrous size advantage told. They were basically two classic weight divisions apart. You could use Ray being embarrassed by Norris in similar fashion if you're prepared to use the Trinidad fight against Whitaker, which would get you laughed out of a conversation.

And saying that Whitaker is overrated but then saying that Leonard is arguably the greatest ever is daft, because the latter statement is a ridiculous overrating of Ray. He has no case whatsoever for that lofty a ranking. Top 5 is highly unlikely. Top 10 is possible but still a potential stretch. Most well thought out and heavily researched lists that I've seen have him in the top twenty usually, sometimes top 15.

 

Leonard is a tough one to rate all time. His 4 best wins are among the greatest, but his resume lack a lot of meat after them

 

Well I had him ahead by a point or two but I need to rewatch it with the volume turned down.

 

Literally, You're the ONLY Boxing Fan REED's EVER Heard Attempting to Make a Case for Chavez WINNING That Fight...

The Most ABSURD Scorecard REED Heard Prior was a Chavez Nuthugger Who Scored it 2 Rounds Apiece, 8 Rounds Even...But Even He COULDN'T Bring Himself to Declare Chavez the WINNER...

If/When You Rewatch it, Try REMOVING the Mexican Flag Tinted Glass and Consume FEWER Shots of Tequila...





REED

 

Who's him, Chavez or Whitaker?

If it's Chavez, that's a freaking bad scorecard.

 

I had Pea up on the scorecards. But I can easily see a draw. It was only by a point or two.

 

You might be the only person ever to score that for Chavez.

 

I know more than a few people, longtime boxing guys, that scored it for Chavez. And they made- these discussions happened right after the fight- a pretty good case. Personally, I haven't watched it, the whole fight, since it happened, and probably won't.

 

I watched the fight last night but didn't score, I'd also had a drink and it was like 3:00 in the morning. However, I did feel strongly Whitaker won and I always have. Even though he didn't get the decision, it is an excellent example of how Whitaker would deal with a pressure fighter at the highest level.

 

The night it happened, I had a party at my house and had many drinks and I thought Chavez lost, though my memory is short on specifics.

 

Lot of anger from Reed these days.


Anyways, LEONARD was better but I think Whittaker performance vs Chavez was the best performance either man ever turned it.