Pernell Whitaker vs Ike Williams

What if he faced Ike IBEABUCHI?? Well ??

 

The PRESIDENT ... :think

 

We might need MR. BILL to resolve this issue, methinks!

 

And I had over 600 fights with my ex wife, meaningless....

 

Amateur fights are meaningless now hmmmmm, I think many promoters would disagree because they know a well schooled amateur has shed loads of ring experience and proven world class credentials

 

What happens if you take Whittaker, with all his skill, potential and ability, and put him in the 40's. Are we saying he doesn't do well?

I don't think he's the best fighter ever, but i think it's quite insane to think he isn't great. Anyway, i'm going to watch Spain now.

 

If Pernell Whitaker fought in the 1940s, and fought bi-weekly and and if sucessful he would by cream getting to the top be a better fighter learning his trade in a 100-150 fight career,than the Whitaker of 46 fights '40 years later...Whitaker would have either survived those more experienced fighters, or falling by the wayside...But he would have been a more seasoned boxer...

 

Yeah, because Whitaker really had trouble with "swarming dynamos", what with his non-existent ability to fight off the back foot, low punch output, poor chin, lack of jab etc., as demonstrated in such fights as that vs. Azumah Nelson, whom he, err, humiliated and shut-out whilst setting new CompuBox records for punches landed?

And Ike Williams and Duran, swarmers? Are you kidding? They're both brawlers who would seem to have trouble with movement.

Whitaker's absolute peak came against Nelson in 1990, which adds up to nine years. That's one short of ten.

You said you were "most impressed" by Whitaker when he fought Trinidad because he was gallant in taking a beating. That implies that his other performances were less impressive. No wonder you think Whitaker lacks skills compared to the old-timers - you seem to think that blocking punches with your chin is a measure of ability.

If you think those guys are more skilled than Whitaker, you're a better storyteller than you are an analyst, that's for sure. You can play the "oh I saw them live" card all you want. There's film of these fighters that doesn't lie.

Peter Buckley has more fights than Whitaker. What does that prove?

 

Oh I apologize, for seeing the great fighters of the 1940s LIVE..It won't happen again, I promise you. I have seen all the great lightweights of bthe rich 1940s and every fight of Whitaker that YOU have seen on Tv in his
prime...A shifty unorthodox lefthander who madec everyone he fought look awkward, but he would not beat the savage hitting Ike Williams that I saw
pardon me] at MSG many times...If Ike williams could destroy Beau Jack,
he would overcome a light hitting Whitaker, however shifty Pernell was.....

 

Right you are burt. Care to chip in on my thread "Pernell Whitaker vs. Joey Peralta @ 135" just down the page on Classic?

 

Burt, did you see Ike fight Freddie Dawson? He struggled with him on more than one occasion. If you did, how would you compare Dawson to Whitaker? Did Dawson have something Pernell lacked that would make Ike take him on easier terms?I noticed that you mentioned Freddie Dawson on the second page of this thread and how he could give Whitaker all he could handle and more.
How so? I'd like an elaboration.

 

I think Whitaker's speed would preveil in a close fight.

 

I rank Whitaker #2 head to head at lightweight and Williams #3.

 

No I did not see Freddie Dawson fight as he was seldom boxing in NY, but he was so avoded that he had to fight in Australiam, so he could get bouts...He had a great reputation in the 1940s as a great all around fighter...Anyone who could stop Tommy Bell and Bernard Docusen had to be tops...He was like a smaller version of Dick Tiger in my opinion....as I posted before I go for the fighter who had the most fights against stiffer opposition as tough Freddie Dawson did...

 

An obvious mismatch. After all, Peralta had well over 100 fights and even managed to beat Chalky Wright, who himself had well over 100 fights. Whitaker simply lacked the experience to cope. Skills be damned. Wins over class opposition be damned. If you don't have over 100 fights, you can't compete with those who did. That much was proven conclusively in those days when guys like Fred Apostoli (having had just 6 and 29 fights respectively for their bouts) was matched up with the much more experienced Freddie Steele.......oh wait.