Pernell Whitaker vs Ike Williams

I also think this is a very competitive fight. But it would ultimately come down to Ike's superior firepower. Williams by either UD or very possible late rounds TKO.

Both men immensely talented, but Ike has the guns. Pernell doesn't.

 

good point and good post. he was certainly no defensive genius true and by reflexes i did mean combination punching and taking advantages of opportunities from opponents. I personally find him quite quick, both of hand and foot when he wanted to be. i don't know, for me watching ike williams what sticks out is that he had everything physically, combined with very solid offensive technique.

you're bang on about sweet peas jab: i just don't think he ever faced a fighter like williams, who may be able to smother the jab and work his way in and blitz whitaker with combinations

 

I think he had very good handspeed in combination when he exploded, but he didn't have a particularly fast jab, nor a lot of variety with it. He could be, and was on many occasions, out-jabbed. Even Jack managed to out-jab him at times in the film of their bout. I don't think his feet were particularly quick at all, though. He fought in that same shuffling pace that Louis often did. I simply can't see any fighter so content to wait for his opportunities beating Whitaker, unless they themselves were a similarly skilled pure boxer with better physical attributes. Maybe Tippy Larkin for the dark horse pick, being as I mentioned him earlier. Ike was not that type of boxer.

He'd be left waiting a little too long in this one, and I personally can't see anyone knocking Whitaker out. Therefore, even if at some point in the fight he were to find the range, or catch Pete with a big shot, I think the cards would be too far in Whitaker's favor for it to affect the end result.

 

good analysis:thumbsup

 

Thing is, Williams wasn´t the fastest on his feet, could be a bit plodding and wasn´t always very good at cutting of the ring and at lightweight Sweet Pea had great footspeed and footwork. His southpaw stance and great jab and defence would pose serious problems for Ike. And Pernell had a great chin. Ike would have his moments but Sweet Pea would win a competative decision. I´m very sure of this.
Ike would beat Duran at his own game though while I pick Duran to beat Whitaker. And Benny would beat them all.

 

I saw the great Ike Williams in his prime a few times..I saw Ike murder the great Beau Jack in 1948 in Philly...That night he would have kod any version of Pernell Whitaker...I remember at his peak as a lightweight, he was a terror, just under Ray Robinson in overall ability,[who wasn't ?]...Ike Williams had 155 bouts against such greats as Beau Jack, Bob Montgomery, Sammy Angott, Freddie Dawson, Kid Gavilan etc ,every one of these guys would give Whitaker more than he could handle...Whitaker,
a great defensive boxer who had only FORTY SIX fights ,would NEVER have been champion then,in the golden age, the 1940s...Forty Six fights , would hardly qualify for a main event in MSG, in those very competitive times!! Ike Williams by tko in seven rds...

 

He only fought 46 times because he had a big contract with hbo, if ike williams had a contract like that, he wouldnt fight 100 times. Chavez, Trinidad, De La Hoya couldnt come anywhere near stopping pernell, but Ike would, I dont think so, hes much slower than pernell to pull that off. Ike has over 25 losses, he's hardly unbeatable. 3 of those were to a slickster like wille joyce.

If your saying pernell wouldnt have ever been champ back then? I call that homer bias, he would be champ in any era. Pernell Whitaker is far more talented than many of the guys that were world champs back then, fritzie zivic and freddie dawson world champs, but pernell would fall short, lol.

Julio Cesar Chavez, Azumah Nelson, Buddy Mcgirt, Vasquez, Haugen, Ramirez, Mayweather, Pendleton. Pretty good resume for someone with just '46' fights. If he fought over 60 times, he would probably rank higher than ali.

 

Oh sure Whitaker woukld have licked Beau Jack,Montgomery,Welter Kid Gavilan ,etc?
I have seen these guys,and their times, have you...Ike Williams was on cuffs for so many fights those days because he defied the mobs mgrs
alliance...But when allowed he was a vicious combination puncher
along the lines of a larger Ray Robinson...Have you seen Willie Joyce fight
Well I did ...Willie Joyce was a great clever boxer, who had three times more fights than Whitaker did against the cream of the crop of the
great lightweights of the times...I have nothing against Whitaker, but Beau Jack in 1942-43 would have absolutely overwhelmed Pernell with
His non stop attack from all possible angles...Whitaker had nothing to hold off the powerful young Beau Jack.....

 

Okay it clearly seems like you show a bias towards the guys you grew up with and have a bias against whitaker because he only fought 46 times. Shame on whitaker for signing a contract with hbo that pays him millions.

Pernell Whitaker is usually held in a higher regard than montgomery, jack and joyce, not hard to see him lick them. Not a big deal though, pernell always had his doubters. Chavez was supposed to cut the ring off and knock him out, that didnt happen. Vasquez and Mcgirt were supposed to beat him, that didnt happen. De La Hoya was supposed to knock him out, instead pernell outlands him, drops him and arguably wins.

 

Whenever someone disagrees with you it is bias...Am I and others who lived through the 1940s and saw as I have Ray Robinson, Willie Pep, Ike Williams,Kid Gavilan, Johnnie Bratton, Beau Jack,Marcel Cerdan, forget what we have seen with our own eyes for fear of being called BIASED ? Not I...Ok than I am biased towards Joe Louis, Ray Robinson, Willie Pep, Ike Williams, Kid Gavilan, Ezzard Charles etc each who had over 100 bouts
against the very best opposition of those very, very tough fighters of the era...So yes I apologize to you for my "bias"....

 

No, but when you suggest he wouldnt even be a champion, that suggests a bias against him. Then again i dont have to make a case for pernell anyways, he's clearly winning this matchup.

 

Burt I respect your opinions but I think you are underrating Sweet Pea here. It´s not about the number of fights but how proven they are at the very top and Whitaker certainly is. Williams is too. But stylewise Whitaker has a big advantage. As good as Williams was, cutting of the ring wasn´t his strength. He was a bit plodding. Whitaker on the other hand had great footwork and was fast on his feet. A better jab, a high workrateand a great chin. And the southpaw stance would factor in as well. And if Williams is able to cut off the ring, Whitaker was good enough to hold his own defensivly. Even against a Williams. It would be competative but I think the style-advantage is too much in favour of Whitaker.

 

Bodhi,I respect your opinion and for not using the old bromide "bias" to defame ones legitimate views...I hold a powerful view that to call a fighter an ATG,the boxer should have at LEAST 80 to 100 fights and maintain
dominance over his eras opponents, which is a difficult thing to do...
For example==Which is more indicative of a better baseball player..
Player A after 46 games has a batting average of 333,or Player B after 155 games has a batting average of 333 also ?...Player B of course has proven himself over the long haul, where Player A has not proven he would be able to maintain those difficult numbers against more and more tough pitching...So with boxers...Let me see if Whitaker fighting trwice as often and more,against three to four times licensed lightweights of the 1940s,
do what Ike Williams did in his great career...The vast odds are not in his favor I believe...Final example--You have never seen a prime Beau Jack
except for his kayo by Williams in 1946..Well I saw him outpunch the
great Henry Armstrong in 1943 MSG..Jack threw a voluminous amount of punches forv 15 rds, and as I posted beforeWhitaker would be able to dodge a few bullets, but would be unable to dodge bullets from a machine gun puncher as Beau Jack...I will always maintain that for the MOST part,
a fighter who has 100-150 fights against a vaster amount of high calibre
competition and becomes a champion, has it over a fighter with 46 bouts against much weaker opposition...Thus Ike Williams over Pernell Whitaker.

 

Whitaker by shut out - its all about the footwork

 

Pernell Whitaker would never have been good enough to compete on a main card in the '40s? Have you been blowing your pension on crack or something?

Seriously mate, I enjoy your memories as much as anyone else, but that's just way over the line. Take off those rose-tinted specs.