Sweet Pea & Arguello : Who ranks higher on the ATG list

[FINITO81]

and why? some thought out answers please..

[man]

difficult to compare. sweet pea by slight margin for
me. but i'm biased because he is closer to the time
when i started being interested in boxing.

and i love his unusual, superb talent. pernell's reading
and reflexes are just on a very unique level. arguello
is great, pernell is ... special.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Whitaker for me, but it's quite close. Why? I don't think he lost a fight until Tito, through four divisions.

[dempseyfire]

Whitaker, fairly decisively for me.

[Rover]

I'd take Whitaker.

[giacomino]

I'd probably go with Whitaker on ring skills but they are tough to compare. Both had amazing resumes, Arguello's (and most of Whitaker's) earned before the era when every third or fourth fighter was handed a paper title. One was a great boxer-puncher with one-punch power, the other one of the great boxers of our lifetime. Neither dodged tough fights and neither sought the easy route to paper titles.

[FINITO81]

In terms of what?

Talent?

Impact in the divisions they ruled in?

Overall Resume?

impact and overall resume..

[RadioElRadar]

I'd probably go with Whitaker on ring skills but they are tough to compare. Both had amazing resumes, Arguello's (and most of Whitaker's) earned before the era when every third or fourth fighter was handed a paper title. One was a great boxer-puncher with one-punch power, the other one of the great boxers of our lifetime. Neither dodged tough fights and neither sought the easy route to paper titles.

Nice assessment

[Bobbyptsd]

In terms of what?

Talent?

Impact in the divisions they ruled in?

Overall Resume?

Whitaker in all three cases, in my estimation.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

I don't rate fighters on a H2H opinion basis, but I think Whitaker would have beaten Alexis 10 times out of 10.

[Ambling Alp II]

This is an interesting call. As mentioned they had differing styles.
Obviously, they did not fight head to head. Maybe I am missing someone, but I believe they only had one common opponent; Jose Luis Ramirez, and not a lot can be gleamed from that.

Arguello had more losses, and more importantly more relevant losses; he lost to Ernesto Marcel and had a rather embarrassing loss to Vilomar Fernandez. Take a way the controversial loss to Ramirez and a couple of losses when he was clearly past, it and you are only left with the loss to De La Hoya. Whitaker would have a slight edge here.

As for their big wins; Whitaker's biggest win over Azumah Nelson trumps any of Arguello's. Aeguellos biggest name was Olivares, but Olivares was not at his best weight and was not as close to his best as Nelson was when Whitaker beat Nelson.

Whitaker had some wins over good fights like Pendleton,Paez,Pineda, and Rivera. He also had some wins over some very good fighters like Haugen,McGirt (2x), Roger Mayweather, Vasquez, and Ramirez. And of course he should have got a win over a slightly past best but still formidable Chavez.

Here is where the best case for Arguello comes in. It's almost easy to forget just how many good fighters he beat and usually fairly easily.
Good fighters such as Art Hafey,Hernandez,Kobashi,Solis,Leon, Rooney, Ganigan, Noel, Costello.
Then there very good fighters like Legra, Escalera,(2 X)Limon,Chacon,Boza-Edwards,Navarette,Castillo,Watt, and Mancini.

Close call, but I think that is just enough to rank Arguello ahead of Whitaker.

[Rover]

This is an interesting call. As mentioned they had differing styles.
Obviously, they did not fight head to head. Maybe I am missing someone, but I believe they only had one common opponent; Jose Luis Ramirez, and not a lot can be gleamed from that.

Arguello had more losses, and more importantly more relevant losses; he lost to Ernesto Marcel and had a rather embarrassing loss to Vilomar Fernandez. Take a way the controversial loss to Ramirez and a couple of losses when he was clearly past, it and you are only left with the loss to De La Hoya. Whitaker would have a slight edge here.

As for their big wins; Whitaker's biggest win over Azumah Nelson trumps any of Arguello's. Aeguellos biggest name was Olivares, but Olivares was not at his best weight and was not as close to his best as Nelson was when Whitaker beat Nelson.

Whitaker had some wins over good fights like Pendleton,Paez,Pineda, and Rivera. He also had some wins over some very good fighters like Haugen,McGirt (2x), Roger Mayweather, Vasquez, and Ramirez. And of course he should have got a win over a slightly past best but still formidable Chavez.

Here is where the best case for Arguello comes in. It's almost easy to forget just how many good fighters he beat and usually fairly easily.
Good fighters such as Art Hafey,Hernandez,Kobashi,Solis,Leon, Rooney, Ganigan, Noel, Costello.
Then there very good fighters like Legra, Escalera,(2 X)Limon,Chacon,Boza-Edwards,Navarette,Castillo,Watt, and Mancini.

Close call, but I think that is just enough to rank Arguello ahead of Whitaker.

You're right; Ramirez was their only common opponent.

[giacomino]

This is an interesting call. As mentioned they had differing styles.
Obviously, they did not fight head to head. Maybe I am missing someone, but I believe they only had one common opponent; Jose Luis Ramirez, and not a lot can be gleamed from that.

Arguello had more losses, and more importantly more relevant losses; he lost to Ernesto Marcel and had a rather embarrassing loss to Vilomar Fernandez. Take a way the controversial loss to Ramirez and a couple of losses when he was clearly past, it and you are only left with the loss to De La Hoya. Whitaker would have a slight edge here.

As for their big wins; Whitaker's biggest win over Azumah Nelson trumps any of Arguello's. Aeguellos biggest name was Olivares, but Olivares was not at his best weight and was not as close to his best as Nelson was when Whitaker beat Nelson.

Whitaker had some wins over good fights like Pendleton,Paez,Pineda, and Rivera. He also had some wins over some very good fighters like Haugen,McGirt (2x), Roger Mayweather, Vasquez, and Ramirez. And of course he should have got a win over a slightly past best but still formidable Chavez.

Here is where the best case for Arguello comes in. It's almost easy to forget just how many good fighters he beat and usually fairly easily.
Good fighters such as Art Hafey,Hernandez,Kobashi,Solis,Leon, Rooney, Ganigan, Noel, Costello.
Then there very good fighters like Legra, Escalera,(2 X)Limon,Chacon,Boza-Edwards,Navarette,Castillo,Watt, and Mancini.

Close call, but I think that is just enough to rank Arguello ahead of Whitaker.

I think you mean Arguello's controversial win over Ramirez, which was mainly close, if I remember correctly, because Ramirez floored him. Essentially a couple of big-hitters swapping punches. Ramirez made a name for himself fighting Arguello tough, only to turn around and get totally out-worked by Mancini the next year. Dude was one of the toughest fighters I've seen

[elmersalsa]

This question, to me, is very interesting. At one point when I was doing my personal ranking, I had these two very highly in the top 20 all time. Both beat great quality of opposition and both to me, were very dominant.

The great Alexis Arguello had a tremendous punch. A complete KO artist that could set you up in a fight when you least expected. What a fighter. Great concentration, used his reach and height advantages perfectly. But he could be outboxed if you round in circles around him. "The Explosive Thin Man" won 3 world titles, and did not lose none of his belts. He beat the very best champion of every weight class that he was in: Ruben Olivares, Alfredo Escalera and Jim Watt. Won 19 straight championship bouts. That is amazing.

The great Pernell Whitaker was a dominant master. Most of his fights were dominant masterpieces. To me, the best fighter of his era (The 1990s). THE ONLY REAL FIGHT THAT HE LOST was to Felix "Tito" Trinidad. And that was when he was not in his prime. But aside from that, he whupped Julio Cesar Chavez, not only he beat him, he embarrassed him and made him look like a total idiot. And to my dismay, it was called a draw? Are we serious?
He eradicated Jose Luis Ramirez twice. Forget about that first fight robbery.
Greg Haugen, he took him to class with such grace.
Buddy McGirt he schooled him twice.
He even went to 154lbs and became champion against a bigger opponent named Julio Cesar Vazquez.
The great Azumah Nelson, the so called "Professor", Whitaker became his Dean.
He took Roger Mayweather's jockstrap without taking his shorts
I mean, this guy was a total master. An underappreciated technician that only REAL BOXING FANS paid attention to.

Arguello had more fights and more KOs than Whitaker had fights. But the mastery that Sweet Pea did in the 90s is so hard to ignore. Arguello was not the best fighter of his era. Probably because there was far more better competition than in Whitaker's era. But, I cannot go with that. I go for the performance in your time.

[elmersalsa]

The two other things Sweet Pea lacked was charisma and a great punch. Those were the only flaws in his game.

[elmersalsa]

I got Whitaker over Arguello. The more I think about it, it is.

[Ambling Alp II]

elmer-I will converse with you about this, but if you start going on with one of your anti-De La Hoya rants, I will stop.

I agree with much of what you said. I don't agree that Whitakers only "real "loss was to Trinidad. De La Hoya won that fight fair and square. Whitaker was starting to decline and that has to be taken into consideration.
I don't think he "schooled" McGirt and Mayweather. He certainly deserved the decisions, but they were compeittitive. Against McGirt in particular, Whitaker was not that impressive.
Agree that Whitaker should have got decisions over Chavez and Ramirez. Also agree that he dominated Haugen and the easy win over Nelson was very impressive.

[elmersalsa]

If you say that Oscar De La Hoya beat Sweet Pea, then, that is your view. To me, De La Hoya did not do enough to win the crown.

[Rover]

elmer-I will converse with you about this, but if you start going on with one of your anti-De La Hoya rants, I will stop.

I agree with much of what you said. I don't agree that Whitakers only "real "loss was to Trinidad. De La Hoya won that fight fair and square. Whitaker was starting to decline and that has to be taken into consideration.
I don't think he "schooled" McGirt and Mayweather. He certainly deserved the decisions, but they were compeittitive. Against McGirt in particular, Whitaker was not that impressive.
Agree that Whitaker should have got decisions over Chavez and Ramirez. Also agree that he dominated Haugen and the easy win over Nelson was very impressive.

I had Whitaker/DLH a draw.

[Ezzard]

I prefer Arguello's record but think Pernell would beat him.