BoxRec

By modern I mean 1965 onwards!
1. Duran
2. Pacman
3. Leonard
4. Monzon
5. Hearns

Off the top of my head

Duran
Leonard
Whitaker
Hearns
Hagler

Hard one to call…

I’ll give you my top fighter of the era (sometimes top 2) from HW to FW…

M. Ali
M. Spinks
C. Monzon
M. Hagler (I give the edge to Monzon but it’s close enough for me to include both)
E. Griffith
R. Leonard (same argument as above)
R. Duran
S. Sanchez

I’ll throw in Hearns too because he was just so good. Pacquaio would probably make it once he’s retired. Whittaker would probably make it on another day.

The top 5 are in that group...

I'd be confident putting Duran at number 1. After that any order seems okay to me.

Duran
Ali
Leonard
Whitaker
Hagler

Leonard
Duran
Arguello
Ali
hmmmm many come to mind, have to think

1. Roberto Duran...to me, the greatest fighter of the last 50 years
2. Muhammad Ali...To me, the greatest heavyweight of all-time
3. Carlos Monzon...The greatest middleweight ever
4. Sugar Ray Leonard...A true all-time great. Too bad that he retired early in 1982 when he was at his very best.
5. Pernell Whitaker....The best fighter pound per pound of his era, the 1990s.

elmersalsa wrote:1. Roberto Duran...to me, the greatest fighter of the last 50 years
2. Muhammad Ali...To me, the greatest heavyweight of all-time
3. Carlos Monzon...The greatest middleweight ever
4. Sugar Ray Leonard...A true all-time great. Too bad that he retired early in 1982 when he was at his very best.
5. Pernell Whitaker....The best fighter pound per pound of his era, the 1990s.

Mostly pretty good reasoning, but it's a well-kept secret that Whitaker would've beaten Duran

Beaten him...& then lost the decision, mind...

I don't mind if someone says that Whitaker would have beaten Duran. Whitaker was a hell of a fighter that was maybe too unappreciated GoodNight Irene

How is Whitaker underappreciated? The only things I ever hear about Whitaker is people riding his nuts talking about how every fight he ever lost or was close was a robbery, how he should've won 120-108x3 against De La Hoya, how "God couldn't touch him" even though he sounds more slurred than punching bag Joe Frazier, and all kinds of other stuff that borders on the outer edge of bieng ridiculous.

Slurred speech doesn't always mean a fighter got hit a lot. Many of the boxers that are considered "punchy" are boxers who didn't take care of themselves between fights and after they were finished with boxing. George Chuvalo speaks well, while many fighters who abused drugs and alcohol and probably didn't get hit as much as George have slurred speech.

Whitaker's slurred speech is the result of drug abuse, not his fighting days, WEAPON.

His only clear losses were Trinidad & Bojorquez. I won't even bother to explain why they count for nought against him.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Whitaker's slurred speech is the result of drug abuse, not his fighting days, WEAPON.

His only clear losses were Trinidad & Bojorquez. I won't even bother to explain why they count for nought against him.

Yup, but he doesn't care. I mentioned that the last time he made that point. One of the dumbest you will ever read.

And he is underrated by the modern fans. I know one thing, he would have toyed with Manny.

I agree that Whitaker likely makes a mess of Pacquiao, but head-to-head is but one measure for greatness --- there is still achievements, & I have to give the nod to Pacquiao, there. No shame for Whitaker, mind --- almost everyone in recent times loses on resume to Pacquiao, & as I say, I would fancy a nice little bet on Sweet Pea if ever he & Pacman had stepped in the ring at their peaks.

Sorry but I've seen drug addicts, and the way their peech is slurred versus Whitaker' ain't the same thing... Pernell got hit with a lot of grazing shots in his day, he simply made the ones that miss look like they really missed because of how much he moved around so outlandishly...

I agree on the Whitaker-Pacquiao argument btw. Pacquiao eats up aggressive opponents with no torso movement, but looks lost against good movers. Agapito Sanchez (despite the fouling which was his trademark) had Pacquiao looking frustrated and lunging wildly, as did Morales, and he looked less than stellar against Larios and Solis, who he was expected to blow out drama-free.

Point out the fights where the damage was apparently done to Whitaker...

You can't, because they simply do not exist.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Point out the fights where the damage was apparently done to Whitaker...

You can't, because they simply do not exist.

His entire career. He faced the cumulative damage of being hit over the span of a full career where he wasn't necessarily hit flush often, but he took plenty of grazing shots that are overshadowed by the fact that most of them were missing and most of the opponents who landed said shots were being toyed with by him. It's like Christian Mijares recently. He would give the illusion of not being hit by anything because of how he moved around and often made guys miss right at the last moment when they threw their shots, but the truth was he was getting grazed more regularly than what initially appeared to be the case, and he bottomed out against Vic Darchinyan when he finally started getting hit by flush shots, which Whitaker to his credit never did.

Grazing shots do not induce brain damage. Which fights, WEAPON?

I may be in the minority, but I'm comfortable stating that chronically smoking crack for two decades might cause at least a little trauma to the brain.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Grazing shots do not induce brain damage. Which fights, WEAPON?

If somebody hits you with any kind of force over the course of several years of course it can. Pick a fight, I don't care, Azumah Nelson, Chavez, Ramirez, any of them. It's not like they all hit nothing but air the whole time.