Pernell Whittaker - How do you beat him.

To be honest i don't see the power issue as being the biggest here. I just think it's a thing about both men getting off.

 

"The Great Bennah" had a magnficent boxing mind, but he'd need more than that to beat Whitaker, who was off the charts in terms of talent and skill. Benny had power, which is a good thing to have, but I don't think that anyone outboxes Whitaker. You have to take him to a place where his strengths are nullified and only the two mentioned before were capable of brining him there, in my opinion.

 

Interesting idea, and a good one for the majority of fighters of a similar style, but not Pernell. He showed on multiple occasions that he was excellent at fighting off the front foot and pressing the fight. He was more or less made to fight off the backfoot by bigger punchers or pressure fighters most of the time, but when he decided to step on the gas, he was not only very comfortable off the front foot, but also very formidable. Ask Chavez (then again he'd probably tell you very differently).

 

As stated, we saw a prime Pea fight very well off the front foot on many occasions. He was every bit as efficient with other pure boxers. I think Manassa's take is probably the best one I've ever read to be honest. You need a fighter with different elements to his game to even have a prayer.

 

I never saw that kind of ability in Leonard, I never even saw the ability to throw combinations, which was a staple of the era. I don't think a fighter looking to pick off Whitaker with single shots is going to be very successful, at all.

Pea beat Lomeli by KO and Brazier by white-wash fighting primarily off the front foot. He also either stood his ground or took turns leading against fighters like McGirt, Roger Mayweather, Greh Haugen, Poli Diaz, Anthony Jones, etc. He was always very efficient when he did this.

As for the bolded bit, combining offense and defense was one of Whitaker's biggest strengths.

 

Not if he's looking to throw single shots and clinch afterward every time. Pea was a ring general supremo, I don't think he's getting out-done in that area. This fight would likely be fought with either Whitaker on the front foot or in center ring. Either way I give Whitaker the upper hand, easily. At least based on what I've seen of Benny, which isn't very much (same with all of us).

 

That's probably the way to do it. But you need to have a lot of variety and substance to your work. Duran is probably the best choice, along with Ortiz, as mentioned.

 

--"Sadly?" What's that about?

My retort to Teeto and to you is well-tread, but I'll say it again. Duran is just as special as Whitaker -many would say he is more so. Their strengths are different and like any match-up we should look carefully at style. You have been denying the importance of Whitaker's lack of firepower in a Duran fight for a long time now, but that is effectively denying history in favor of fantasy.

Duran was beaten twice when he was young -DeJesus and Leonard beat him. Both had power. Duran, though he'd deny it, did in fact respect power and fought with a bit more care in the face of it. After Montreal he begrudgingly admitted that Leonard was the best man he faced. Leonard's shots are what commanded his respect. Even in New Orleans, Duran wasn't big on rushing in and Leonard's 'slickness' had less to do with it than the persuasive shots that Leonard was landing. Leonard could bang, and Duran wasn't in the great shape of 5 months earlier -that's why Duran was careful. No need for that, against Whitaker who was smaller, weaker, and couldn't bang like Leonard. Duran would be channeling Armstrong on Sweet Pea, similarly to what he did in Montreal. He'd do so with less risk.

You see Whitaker's "magic" as being the difference in Duran-Whitaker. I prefer to go with reality. Unless they exchange the ring for a gymnasium, Whitaker is not going to spend 15 rounds escaping a prime, hungry, well-trained Duran. You are missing the boat here -to win a fight you have to engage your opponent and the prospect of Whitaker, whose frame was miniscule next to Leonard, engaging Duran effectively enough to win is fantasy. It is Duran who would be boss here. And again, not even a natural welterweight in Leonard could not match Duran's strength in close.

Duran is simply too strong, too aggressive, and too skilled, to get whipped by a smaller man -any smaller man. If Pernell had guns, I'd factor that in and re-examine it, but Pernell's skills aren't so superior to Duran's to make the difference.

 

Brilliant post Stonehands, as always. I don't think Whitaker would need to engage with Duran as often as you do in order to win, though. I guess I just have more faith in his jab and ability to fight off the backfoot, and I do think this would be a style that would deter Duran, or at least give him something to think about more than ever before. You could be right, though. These days I'm calling this fight Even Stevens.

 

Old Stonehands sure knows how to piece together a nice bit writing.