Best Defense

[ThinBlack]

Originally Posted by Sweet Pea

He was better from a distance, better inside, albeit with less power, and was more offensive than Benitez. Even though Leonard was faster, Whitaker was IMO craftier on the inside and had good enough reflexes and defensive timing to make Leonard miss just as much as Benitez, but with a better offensive output in terms of shots landed and how effective he was, though not in power shots.

But eventually, Leonard would get him late.

[brownpimp88]

Vazquez clearly took like 3 or 4 rounds. I remember you said whitaker-trinidad was 116-112 in ur opinion, trinidad won by like 5 or 6 points bro.

[Luigi1985]

Originally Posted by Sweet Pea

Not an actual shutout, as in he won all 12 rounds, but he handily won the fight, it wasn't close in my estimation. Whitaker had it controlled the whole way through, so I don't see how Brownpimp says he looked not so good in it.

It´s all kind of definition, it would be one-sided if Whitaker fought there a great fighter or so, but Vasquez wasn´t far away from great...

[Outboxer]

Tough to say.

One thing I'm sure about, though, is that both Pep and Whitaker are better than Mayweather Jr in this department. I'm not quite sure who I'd place in the number 1 spot out of the two, though...I'd need to see more footage of Pep to make a fair evaluation. I'd love to see Pep vs Saddler 2.

[sweet_scientist]

Originally Posted by brownpimp88

Vazquez clearly took like 3 or 4 rounds. I remember you said whitaker-trinidad was 116-112 in ur opinion, trinidad won by like 5 or 6 points bro.

I had Tito-Pea scored 8-4 too (115-111, yes Whitaker DID drop Tito). Nothing wrong with thinking Tito won by a point or two more, but 8-4 is far from an untennable card.

[brownpimp88]

Originally Posted by Sweet Pea

Upon re-watching that fight, I am torn between giving Whitaker 3 or 4 rounds, he clearly got at least 3, even hurt Tito in one of the rounds. But really, that was nowhere near a prime Whitaker, it wasn't even a fair fight at the time, he couldn't dodge his jabs, couldn't respond like he used to, and was forced to brawl on guts.

I was wonderin, do u have his first fight with ramirez and wilfredo rivera? I went to watch them and score the fights myself. Do you think jose suliaman was responsible for him being robbed against ramirez and chavez?

[Robbi]

A question I would to put to everyone.

What was Whitaker's best defensive performance of his career?. I think thats a very tough question, as mostly every fight his defense was very sound.

I would probably say Nelson, then the De la Hoya fight. His defense was pretty damn excellent against De La Hoya considering he was around at least 5 years past his prime.

Not the best performance, but a fight in which his opponents offense was good, but Whitaker's defense was sublime. Awnsers please.

[sweet_scientist]

Originally Posted by Robbi

A question I would to put to everyone.

What was Whitaker's best defensive performance of his career?. I think thats a very tough question, as mostly every fight his defense was very sound.

I would probably say Nelson, then the De la Hoya fight. His defense was pretty damn excellent against De La Hoya considering he was around at least 5 years past his prime.

Not the best performance, but a fight in which his opponents offense was good, but Whitaker's defense was sublime. Awnsers please.

I'd have to agree Robbi, those two were probably the best, and perhaps not by coincidence, they put a lot of offensive pressure on Whitaker.

The scary thing was that Whitaker wasn't even pushed to his defensive limits in his prime to see what kind of crazy shit he was capable of.

Though I think he loses to the likes of Armstrong and Duran, I think he'd have come up with some of the most incredible stuff if he had to face them at 135.

His top 5 defensive performances, as I see it:

1. Nelson
2. DLH
3. Ramirez II
4. Pendleton
5. Pineda

[sweet_scientist]

Originally Posted by Sweet Pea

I've been doing a lot of thinking about the Armstrong fight, I would be more willing to except that he loses to Armstrong than Duran nowadays, even though Armstrong is a pressure fighter that Pea thrives against, I wouldn't argue someone choosing him, having gone over a lot of film of Armstrong.

What in your view gives Armstrong a better chance than Duran? Is it his workrate?

[sues2nd]

Originally Posted by JohnThomas1

Benitez is worthy of consideration too.

As is Hopkins (better than Floyd if you ask me...).

Oh and Whitaker, closely followed by Pep........THEN Floyd. Of the three you named.

[sues2nd]

Originally Posted by Robbi

A question I would to put to everyone.

What was Whitaker's best defensive performance of his career?. I think thats a very tough question, as mostly every fight his defense was very sound.

I would probably say Nelson, then the De la Hoya fight. His defense was pretty damn excellent against De La Hoya considering he was around at least 5 years past his prime.

Not the best performance, but a fight in which his opponents offense was good, but Whitaker's defense was sublime. Awnsers please.

Ramirez 2 or Nelson.

[sues2nd]

Originally Posted by Sweet Pea

Hopkins better than Floyd? Interesting, I disagree, why do you think so?

Floyd's defense, for the most part is textbook (to an extent). He always puts himself, or his arms/gloves, in the right spot to block an opponents attack. And he is phenominal at it.

Hopkins is more. His reflexes are insane (especially when you factor in his advanced age), he is a master at moving juuuust outside/to the side of a punch and leaving himself in the perfect position to counter. On top of that, he ALWAYS keeps his chin perfectly tucked and almost at will rolls with each punch that lands, guarenteeing that if something does land (which doesnt happen to regularly), the effect is negated.

Think about it. When was the last time you saw Hopkins even buzzed.....

Of this current generation of fighters, I rank Hopkins head and shoulders above the rest.

Hopkins







Floyd

Winky
Toney
Spinks
etc.

(I dont count RJJ....I am still trying to pretend he is retired.... )

[Robbi]

Originally Posted by sues2nd

Floyd's defense, for the most part is textbook (to an extent). He always puts himself, or his arms/gloves, in the right spot to block an opponents attack. And he is phenominal at it.

Hopkins is more. His reflexes are insane (especially when you factor in his advanced age), he is a master at moving juuuust outside/to the side of a punch and leaving himself in the perfect position to counter. On top of that, he ALWAYS keeps his chin perfectly tucked and almost at will rolls with each punch that lands, guarenteeing that if something does land (which doesnt happen to regularly), the effect is negated.

Think about it. When was the last time you saw Hopkins even buzzed.....

Of this current generation of fighters, I rank Hopkins head and shoulders above the rest.

Hopkins







Floyd

Winky
Toney
Spinks
etc.

(I dont count RJJ....I am still trying to pretend he is retired.... )

Hopkins has an excellent defense, which is mainly based on superb movement and awareness. His reflexes and ability to feint and counter, sublime.

Hopkins beats Hagler, Leonard, Hearns, and Duran at middleweight.

I'm not getting caught up in the hype that surrounds the fabulous four, thus rating them on reputation over Hopkins.

[sweet_scientist]

Originally Posted by Sweet Pea

Yes, I'd say so, better than Nelson's, on a higher level, then again, re-thinking that fight with Nelson makes me favor Whitaker again, against basically all pressure figters his size.

Nelson only stepped on the pedal in the second half of the fight, but you can rest assured that Armstrong will be going full bore from start to finish. The other big difference I see between Nelson and Armstrong is that Armstrong is much, much better on the inside. Nelson tried hard to press the fight but he had no idea what to do when he had Whitaker in close, continuing to take wild swings at Whitaker's head. I think Armstrong will wisely attack the body and thus land much more consistently than Nelson was able to.

[sweet_scientist]

Originally Posted by Sweet Pea

Good points. Whitaker pretty much owned Nelson from start to fnish, but again, as you said, Armstrong would likely be working on hurting Whitaker early on, while perhaps losing on points, to slow him down late. I see this being a close Decision that Armstrong could win on punishment, or Whitaker could win on points racked up early.

No doubt Whitaker owned Nelson. Along with the second Ramirez fight it was probably the most aesthetically pleasing ownage I've ever seen.

I too see a close fight with Armstrong and really there's nothing too marked that points to either man getting the better of the other.