Who has the better resume Pernell Whitaker or Manny Pacquiao?

[margaret thatcher]

manny had more fights and was more entertaining though, i thought those 2 criteria were they key for you now

[DrDuke]

manny had more fights and was more entertaining though, i thought those 2 criteria were they key for you now

His resume is definitely better, because it's filled with a bigger amount of great names. That's why I voted for him, as it's a question of a resume.

However, if it was a question, who is greater, Manny or Sweet Pea, I'd pick Whitaker, cause Whitaker's results were better.

Pac was struggling with the best guys he faced. Whitaker was winning them all, just getting robbed.

[margaret thatcher]

i agree, pea was the better fighter, manny's career ranks higher to me though

[Cojimar 1946]

Arguing about legitimate losses is a slippery slope. There are plenty of controversial fights that would have impacted legacies had they been scored differently.

Do we give Walcott credit for beating Joe Louis on the basis most observers felt he won? Does Norton get credit for winning the 3rd fight with Ali?

[DrDuke]

Arguing about legitimate losses is a slippery slope. There are plenty of controversial fights that would have impacted legacies had they been scored differently.

Do we give Walcott credit for beating Joe Louis on the basis most observers felt he won? Does Norton get credit for winning the 3rd fight with Ali?

With Walcott it's dodgy, cause Louis was way past it and still scored a kayo in the rematch. Norton indeed was robbed of a better career. He was a champion, who had won the belt outside of the ring and he had never been lineal, but he deserved that.

[Ambling Alp II]

Arguing about legitimate losses is a slippery slope. There are plenty of controversial fights that would have impacted legacies had they been scored differently.

Do we give Walcott credit for beating Joe Louis on the basis most observers felt he won? Does Norton get credit for winning the 3rd fight with Ali?

It can be a slippery slope, but boxing is so corrupt that you have to do it.

Louis was past his best when he fought Walcott and Ali was when he fought Norton. The Ali-Norton fight was very close and could have gone either way; and Norton was not that impressive in that fight. None of us have seen Walcott-Louis, which makes it a little difficult, but almost everyone thought Walcott won.

However, Whittaker-Chavez is a different case. Chavez was still close to his prime. And Whittaker clearly deserved the decision against Chavez.

We should not let the corruption of the officials/promoters/WBS organizations determine how we rate fighters.

If you count the Chavez fight as a win, that makes the edge Pacquiao has in regards to big wins closer. Add Pacquiao's losses in there, (only counting fights near his prime) and it's pretty close.

[NateJR]

Resume goes to Pacquiao by a good margin for me. I'd pick Whitaker in a h2h mythical setting.