Whitaker or Floyd?

I only recall him being hurt by Mayweather and Hurtado (i dont count when he was a shell of himself)

 

Hate to say it, cause i hate the little fucker, but i think pbf was a bit better :(

 

At his peak he was still better.

 

Whitaker had a higher peak (literally)

 

Whitaker got dropped by McGirt but it was more of a flash KD if I remember correctly. An old Whitake lasting 12 with one of the hardest WW hitters of all time in Tito, despite suffering a broken jaw, showed his toughness.

Both Floyd and Pernell seemed to have solid chins, although it’s a little difficult to compare to other guys since they were so brilliant defensively.

 

One of my favorite Floyd sequences was the 8th round against Hatton when he was teeing off on Ricky. The way he was pivoting his body to get the angles on the body shots was beautiful.

Whitaker seemed to be some effortless when it came to that. He knew the angles and would always put his body in the right spots to land his punches and avoid the incoming.

 

Neither one of them ever fought James Page so according to George Foreman, they're both not about shit.

 

against Roger he was hit whilst down so it's hard to gauge

i thought it was consensus that Floyd had a worse chin than Whitaker, who just seemed unknockouble

 

I don't recall too many people saying either guy had a glass jaw, but it's only natural for fans to bring it into question if they rarely see a guy get hit. You simply can't have the reputation of owning an iron beard if you're as elusive as bigfoot.

On the flip side if those same fighters ate a lot more clean shots and shook them off their defense wouldn't have been considered as sound.

Yes, of course there have been fighters with great chins and defense, and it depends upon styles etc. but you can't be both Tex Cobb and Willie Pep.

 

To casuals and people that didn’t watch boxing at the time maybe.

 

I don't think it's that far-fetched anymore, although I don't agree myself. A legit case can be made.

If you stress longevity (which usually has been among the main attributes of evaluating greatness) and consistency, not many fighters in the history can be ranked above Floyd

 

Hall of farmer Brad Goodman once said " Mayweather Jr pretty much fought everyone he should've. Maybe not all at the ideal time, but he fought them nonetheless "

 

I never watched Floyd and thought to myself: "I'm watching the best there ever was."

If thats the experience of others; cool, I can't tell you know to feel. I've never felt it.

 

Floyd is obviously an all timer but the GOAT??? Not for me.

I’ve said it before, but peak for peak Whitaker was better. Roy was better as well.

 

Floyd goes down as a GOAT in terms of consistency, dedication & longevity but his peak achievements are a long way from the top of the mountain. Anyone ranking him GOAT is doing some extrapolating

 

In a sport which literally beats you up how do you measure longevity? The runs guys like Robinson, Pep & Charles (at 175) went on were probably more impressive in terms of opposition quality but are they lese impressive for happening in a compressed time span? Seems debatable. You must get consistency points for being on-it 12 times a year vs 2 times a year, right?

 

Agreed. Longevity matters but it's not the same as longevity in virtually every other sport.

Boxing is pretty much the only one where a guy can basically pick his opponents and schedule. Fans are likely going to be "treated" with more and more undefeated fighters with such longevity in the future.

 

Definitely very debatable, and I agree Charles or Pep probably rank above Floyd even in this sense.

However, it works both ways too. In Floyd's era it would be impossible to fight 8 times a year even if Floyd had wanted to (he hasn't). Back then it was important to maintain a high level all the time, although some challengers were scrubby; now you need to be at your absolute best twice a year (assuming you face tough contenders)

All in all, you can't expect anyone to have a similar record as the past greats and demanding that would seem unfair as well. Comparing records from vastly different eras is nearly as difficult as comparing who would beat whom

 

This thread has encapsulated just precisely why a record with no losses doesn't mean shit before the 2000s.

 

I don't know.

 

I dont really see the case for pbf. His run at 147 was rather shameful, and his so called longevity is tributary to him avoiding so many top fighters (or fighting them too late).

 

Floyd's longevity is also attributed to the fact that he spent the "Money May" phase of his career fighting once a year. Two, tops. To his credit, he lived a clean life, while Whitaker was obviously coked out.

 

Even this is not close to being true. He did not fought Cassamayor, Freitas, Tszyu, Williams nor Margarito. Not 100% sure if Forrest was still fighting at 154 lbs when Floyd was in the same range, but if so, you could add him to the list too. Some will argue it's overly harsh to expect Floyd to have fought all of them (and in a way, it is) but the bar is set pretty high when you call yourself the GOAT.

 

Yes he was. He gave a good drubbing to baldomir a few months after pbf stunk out the joint against him

 

And we also should add thurman to the list. Sure he wasnt ans isnt an atg, but it would have been a lot more interesting than the bore against guerrero and berto

 

May as well add Crawford and spence to the list.

 

Roger had a huge right hand, so it’s not like it’s a knock to get dropped by him anyway. Roger landed a big right hand to drop Pernell, then hit him when he was down, and Whitaker recovered well