I really respect you for watching the fight and posting your scores. I am learning a lot in this debate and we will have our disagreements but, you took the challenge and scored the fight and added your thoughts without any hemming and hawing. I must respect that. Now...there were close rounds. The closes ones I gave to Duran because...he controlled the pace and was the agressor. Buchanan was trying to fight him off in the close rounds. I do not give rounds to the fighter trying to survive unless he really does something to stop the assault and become the assaulter himself even if fighting off of his back foot. Duran dominated this fight and he really did not care if Buchanan landed anything. The rounds where Duran got really sloppy and just went into hunt mode are the rounds that I gave to Buchanan. It was not because Buchanan was really doing anything different or changing the tide. Duran simply got reckless I think out of disrespect for Buchanan. You gave Buchanan four rounds. I gave him three. The fight went 13. Domination. We scored the fight basically the same except for the 4th. There were a few rounds that I was tempted to give Duran a 10-8 round because he was hitting Buchanan with bombs constantly but Buchanan chin and heart was all that kept him from going down. "The game Buchanan, they come no gamer". -Don Dumphy
I just watched the Nelson - Whitaker fight in full. Whitaker won the fight clean and Nelson fought as best he could. Pernell did not dominate with the jab. How could he? Nelson was all over him the entire fight. Pea did jab lovely, but he did most of his work with hooks to the body and head. If he hit hard Nelson would have been in some real trouble. Pea was forced to fight in the trenches even though he was on his bicycle. He would be facing the same kind of pressure from Duran, only much faster and smarter, and with much more speed and power and confidence. When Pernell stopped and punched with Duran he would be getting the worst of it. I watched the first few rounds of Pernell - DLH and it is a very good technical match. Whitaker looked good but so did Oscar. I am very interested on finishing the bout. I did not score the Nelson fight because I felt no need to. I was more so looking for the style employed. It looked to me that Pernell won every round. That last few are a blur since they were doing more wrestling that boxing. Peace
I think you've lost sight of the actual argument and thus resorting to fallacies now my friend. The whole discussion started with who has shown the better jab in their fights and who has shown the best ring generalship in their fights. This wasn't about did Pea show a better RG in all his fights against these foes and did duran show better RG in one fight and how would that fighter do against Pea's foes.. That isn't close to the argument nor the premise we were working under. When examining who showed the best RG in their fights that includes ALL their fights. Thus, when I say DLH could give Duran problems it's only logical to take a look at ALL his fights and take a medium... not the best. Duran didn't always come in at his best.. Thus, why would the best duran be put against Pea's foes. Doesn't work that way. My statement stands and unquestionably true... DLH could spoil Duran and Duran's career showed just that. I realize you need to pigeon hole the argument in this fashion because Pea was much more consistent than Duran and showed superior RG in all his fights in comparison to duran. However, I wasn't fooled my friend but nice try. A blown up coked out Pea wasn't put away against a straight Killer in Felix. Suffice to say a prime pea isn't going to be put away by virtually anybody Duran lost to. He might lose sure, but he wouldn't be put away. So as I stated, by not being KO'd by Hearns he would do better. By actually beating W.B. he would be doing better. By not losing to Dejesus he would be doing better. That was my claim and it's supported by the evidence. Pea could fight in more ways than Duran and that is why he'd have more success than Duran against these guys. BTW SRL didnt' try the matador routine with Hearns.. He tried to box him at range.. something Pea wouldn't try.. Pea would be making Hearns come to hime and countering him.. while getting really close inside with hears like SRL where he's the better fighter than Hearns. IN either case.. he would've get Ko'd plain and simple and thus do better. Are you saying Pea would get KO'd in 2? If not, then you agree with me Pea would do better correct? Are saying Duran did better against W.B. than Pea would? I don't agree at all but I actually haven't seen you take a stand. I've just seen you disagree with how he'd fight W.B. but not who you think would do better. Pea would also not lose to Dejesus.. you agree correct? So if you agree on all of the above why are we carrying on this argument. Pea would do better than Duran did. Simple.
I literally dont' know how you could say he didn't dominate with the Jab.. that was the clear best punch of the fight for either party. It wasn't even close. Sure Pea thrown a lot of other shots... but the Jab was the key weapon. The guy who tries conflate other things that aren't jab related to Duran's jab.. now doesn't do the same with Pea. You listed any number of things the jab set up for Duran that have NOTHING to do with the actual jab. Yet, here the jab didn't set anything up for Pea? Odd and not very consistent on your part buddy. The fact remains, Pea had the better jab and that is without question. All the other things Duran did that you say worked off the jab are great but they have NOTHING to do with the jab itself.. which Pea's was clearly superior. As McGrain said.. we can see both jabs on film and Pea's was markedly better. That is just how it is. Anyways, Pea controlled Nelson with the jab and there are no two ways about it.. it was a jabbing clinic.
You'd have to go some ways to give Nelson more than one round against Whitaker. And that's if you're being generous.
Fallacies? Like the one about Ramirez being primed and ready for Pernell when he was really at the end of his career? Or the one about Ramirez having one loss when he had nine loses, one by a two round KO. Pernell had one fight at 154. How is that evidence when you put him up against Hearns who was at his absolute best at this weight and Benitez. Whitaker had one fight at 154. Evidence? Leonard did not move away from Hearns and try to counter him? He tried to "box him at range". What exactly is the difference? Either the guy is coming forward pressing the fight or moving away setting traps boxing at range. Pernell is a better infighter than Hearns? I think you better look at Hearn-Barkley I. I know that Hearns was KO'ed but Hearns was killing Barkley inside to the point that Barkley could not even get his hands up. Barkley landed a desperation bomb on Hearns who was on his way to KO'ing Barkley, with bodyshots. You better watch Hearns-Schuler, or Hearns-Leonard I. To beat Hearns you have to rush him and put pressure on him that he can't handle. Pernell is going to need to do that. Will he? Can he...with 17 total KO's...go into the trenches with Hearns? Matador? Leonard couldn't do...Benitez couldn't do it, Duran couldn't do it. Now here comes Pernell Whitaker. He is going outwork Hearns inside? Hearns already beat Whitaker? His name was Benitez, who was greater at the slipping and ducking and countering than Pernell himself. Duran got KO'ed by Hearns? Pea may go 3 or 4 because he will be running for his life, not trading like Duran chose to. Pernell lost to De La Hoya. Duran would run through De La Hoya. Duran lost convincingly to Benitez. So would Whitaker. Whitaker fought once at 154. He would lose convincingly to Benitez at 154 and at 147. Sugar Ray Leonard could not lay a glove on Benitez most of the fight at 147. Leonard had to step his game up and his power finally came through. Pernell has no power to worry Benitez. Pernell could not fight more ways than Duran. Duran rushed Leonard and boxed on near even terms with Hagler, the greatest southpaw of all time btw. Duran rushed and outboxed De Jesus. Whitaker is at his best when he is pivoting and jabbing. He he gets toe to toe he gets hit more and the fight tends to be closer. Either style Duran KO's his opponent or beats on them. I have already said that Pernell would beat all of Duran LW opponents but he would have his hands much more full with De Jesus than he had with the featherweight Nelson and the aged Ramirez. Pea vs Leonard: Leonard by KO. Leonard KO'ed Benitez who is a better puncher, defender, and all-around fighter than Pernell. Pea vs. Hearns 147, 154: Hearns KO's Pernell who has no choice but to bang with Hearns who at 6'1 with the reach of Ali and the speed of Taylor and the power of Robinson can just sit outside and jab at will until he finds openings. Hearns chin will not let him down because Pernell is not in anyway a hard puncher. Pea vs Benitez 147, 154: Benitez in both. Benitez is a much better all-around fighter with more power and move aggressive. He is just as hard to hit and will have Pernell backing away at 137. At 154 Benitez has much more experience and skill.In short he would be lose to everyone that Duran lost to. Be would get no wins above his 135 weight class. If we want to take all of Duran's fights and put them against all of DLH's fights lets go. This is a guy to who loses to Mosley who beats him to the body and runs him out of gas. Hopkins hits him one shot to the body and lays him out. Pacquiao had him on life support. Mayweather pot-shotted his way to victory. DLH was all excited about his win over Vargas and Mayorga who were already Trinidad victims by the time he faced them. Put Duran's wins over Leonard, Palomino, Cuevas, Moore, Barkley...and his close decision loss to Hagler. I will take Duran's after prime life to DLH's all day. Pernell had under 50 fights. Duran had over 100 and you want to penalize Duran for being a champion at 135, 147, 154, and 160 from early 70's the late 80's. Go ahead. Pernell did it better? Sure... Jab-smab. Duran would have beaten Pernell at any weight class they fought in. Any other thought we are talking about is moot when we get back to that...and BTW, you have already agree with that point.
Your whole post that I am quoting is basically saying that I give no credit to Pea's jab because I do not agree with you that in his fight against Nelson his jab was dominate. It do not think it was, but I did say he "jabbed lovely" did I not? That means I give him credit for using his jab effectively in this fight. Seriously, Azumah was walking right to Pernell all fight and making Pernell throw all kinds of hooks and bodyshots. That basically means I am saying Pernell's jab was lovely, and it opened up his other punches that he had no choice but to use. I am starting to wonder if you have seen this fight at all. Why you are seeing Pernell doing some kind of jab instruction manual is beyond me. He had to fight Nelson off with everything in his arsenal. Paste a round in the fight. Any round. Pick the round where you see Pernell using his jab the most. Prove me wrong. I can take it. BTW, I am learning all kinds of stuff about Pernell and other fighters I did not know before this debate so thank you. Keep it coming.
I've read this thread with great interest and enjoy reading your posts. For the most part they are well reasoned and even though I don't agree with everything you say, for the most part you try to back up your argument with facts. But a couple of clarifications. Firstly, I've been on this board and on another boxing forum for about 15 years or so, I've never once heard anyone say you have to take the medium (which I believe you've confused with the word median = half better/half worse). Generally speaking this is all speculation, but unless mentioned otherwise it's usually assumed you are taking the best version of either fighter. The problem with Duran was he could fluctuate from one of the very best ATG's in the ring, to a relatively mediocre fighter (the Kirkland fight was absolutely atrocious) so how would one even going about picking a median version? Which particular fight would approximate such an abstract concept? Now if a fighter is more constant than it's a much easier task but that doesn't deflect from the basic point that normally the best versions of each fighter is used when mythical match-ups are considered. As to the jab question, I think if you only focus on the jab, Whitaker has the better one, but if you focus on the offense Duran prevails. Similarly if you focus on individual components of defense Whitaker might come out on top, but I've always said the beauty of Duran was not his offense or his defense, both of which were stellar, rather it was the transition from one to the other in a split second that set him apart. Now, I'll sit back and enjoy the rest of the debate.
Henry Armstrong, Joe Gans, Benny Leonard, Pernell Whitaker, Oscar DeLaHoya, Shane Mosley, Manny Pacquiao, Floyd Mayweather Jr., Julio Cesar Chavez, Juan Manuel Marquez, Erik Morales, Alexis Arguello, Barney Ross... they would all have at least "a chance"
I appreciate the response Van and I also enjoy your posts as well Now as to the discussion.. This is what I'm saying... If we're talking this fighter against that fighter, yes, it's assumed that it's best for best unless otherwise specified. That problem is, that isn't what the discussion has morphed into at this point... Where it has gone now is.. who has the better jab and who should the best ring generalship. Under that premise.. you can't sake the best one or two fights and put that as your evidence on who was better at both. It needs to be the totality of their resume, which is where Duran falls shorts in this case. In regards to ring generalship... I'm simply pointing out that in many of his fights.. he wasn't the boss on the ring.. the fight wasn't fought on his terms. This is illustrated in any number of fights... Hearns, W.B., SRL2, Hagler, Dejesus 1 and some of his other bad losses. You can't look at each fighters best two fights and go look at that ring generalship and be painting an accurate picture of the fighter. In either case, Jab or RG, all the fights needs to be looked at. In this case, Pernell showed the better ring generalship of the wo and boss'd more fights against the best he fought... Ramirezx2, McGirt x 2, Chavez, Nelson, Haugen, Brazier, DLHetc etc.. Duran, as I listed about, didn't boss the best he fought. So that is what I was saying to JlLP, you can't look at Montreal Duran only and say that is how good a RG he was and forget about Kirkland.. Same thing with the jab. Mind you, I agree with much of what you're saying about Duran's arsenal, which is why I never said Pea had the better arsenal. However, if we're talking about the jab.. then we're talking about the jab.. and Pea's, imo, and decisively better as you seem to agree as well.
BTW.. the things you listed aren't really fallacies but that is okay.. we'll leave that alone for now. There's a big difference... I said Whitaker could employ his whole Matador routine and fight off his back foot.. back up a lot and counter. You said SRL already tried that and it didn't work. SRL tried nothing like that at all. He boxed at range.. which is to say.. he wasn't backing away and fighting of his back foot... Come on big buddy.. you know the difference between the two. NO, SRL didn't fight Hearns the way Pea could.. that isn't his style to fight that way, and thus SRL didn't try that against Hearns and fail. Point is, you can say SRL.. Hearns or W.B. would beat Pea.. that that is fine and reasonable.... However, what we can say is... Pea wouldn't quit against SRL... He wouldn't lose convincingly or at all against W.B. and he would get Ko'd like he did against hearns. That is the point I was making and Pernell would show better ring generalship in the process (which was our discussion FYI) That is all I'm claiming and I thinki it's spot on to do so. Talking about WHAT Pernell would do or how he would win is irrelevant really.. Whitaker would do better and show better R.G. in the process is the point is was making.
I just watched this fight. Whitaker: 6,8,9,11 Vazquez: 1,2,3,4,5,7,10,12 I watched Whitaker get hit with jab after jab and left hand after left hand. he tried clowning his way through the fight and Vasquez was not going for it. I saw the punch stats and it looked like crap. Vasquez outjabbed and outboxed Pernell. Whitaker had his moments but he was dropped and wobbled a few times in this fight. If he were fighting 154 pound Hearns he would have suffered the same fate as Duran. If he was in with the 154 pound Benitez he would have suffered the same fate as Duran. Duran lost to those guys because they were all time greats and Whitaker needed a gift and two bogus calls from the ref..when Whitaker was doing is thing in there too. I checked the offical scores and no one gay Vasquez a round. Wow!
I didn't watch the fight? now I'm pretty convinced you watched the highlights.. Lord JPL... just watch Round 1 and tell me which Punch whitaker uses the most and lands the most... He practically lands twice as many jabs as any other punch in his book combined. How could you miss this is beyond me. All the early rounds Pernell did this.. but if you even look at round 9.. it's same thing.. More Jabs landed that any other punch and it's by a decent margin. I've very much enjoyed our conversation JPL and I respect your views.. we may not always agree but it's not necessary that we do either. You're a fan of the sport and knowledgeable of it.. and that is a great combo. Cheers man and hope you're having a good one.
I do not know what you mean when you say the stuff I listed was not really fallacies. The stuff you said about Ramirez was not true. He had nine losses and he was at the end of his career. You made it up for the sake of this arguement and did not think I would check it. I checked it and corrected it so that the board would not be reading fallacies. When are you going to own up to that? Sugar Ray Leonard tried the matador. It did not work. He tried lateral movement, stick and move, luring Hearns in...etc and all it got him was a detached retna. He had not other choice but to bull rush and he discovered that Hearns had crystal in his chin and took advantage of it. Sugar Ray had mastered every style from the Mayweather Shoulder Roll (Ranzany fight) to the Duran counter slug (Duran Montreal fight), to the slip, slip counter, (Benitez fight), to the stand up boxing (Hagler fight). Whatever Pernell does Leonard had done already against better competition with better results. You can believe what you want about Pernell ring generalship. I am not the only one who has disagreed with you. The point of this thread is what LW's would do with Duran and the more film I watch I Pernell the more limits of his skill I see than pluses. He could slip and jab and counter but he also used his slipping skill to mask his lack of power and punching skill. He clowned to win judges instead of fighting. Even if Duran won every round he would still come out the 15th round to knock you block off. This conversation is enough to make me not a Pernell fan. He does not need a fan on a mission to prove his greatness. He was great. Duran was greater. It is that simple. By the way. I did not hear anything on the Nelson fight. Are you willing to post the round in which you see Whitaker dominating with the jab and only the jab? While you are at it post the first round of the Leonard-Hearns fight. The thing about your matador offense is that the other fighter has to play the bull. Leonard tried to lure Hearns in. Hearns stayed outside and laughed and wacked Leonard all over the place. Later.
Please, just post the video round and we can go from there. You say he dominated with the jab..I say he jabbed lovely but had to use his other punches to keep Neslon off of him. His other punches were more important than his jab in this fight. If I am wrong I will admit it and move on. You will get no spin from me. Standing by.