Do you consider Pernell Whitaker "flawless"?

Yea sorry I forgot, 3round fights against the best in the world and country are no better than playing fight night 4 and have no bearing on a pro career cough mosley-delahoya cough its a different sport cough mosley-forrest cough cough

 

you gotta admit though, would be much more relevant with more rounds and no gear....World Series of Boxing is a good return to old school form and i'd hope for it to become the norm again :deal. Current amateur system and rules are definitely pretty stupid

 

Yea the current system has gone backwards, but it's the still best way to learn the sport by far, you can learn plenty from being beat over 3-4rounds, fight regularly, not take too much punishment and comeback better. You still really don't want to get punched head gear or not so that in itself doesn't teach bad defense in itself. Obviously today's scoring system teaches bad habits.

Technically the sport has gone backwards as a whole on average in the last 15years in general skills but in the 80s it was arguably at its peak. Its probably the decline of good trainers rather than the modern amateur sport

Funny though that Chagaev and Solis looked so much better and primed in the amateurs than they did in the Pros, quicker, fitter, slimmer, both could have been great HWs with dedication

 

I like head gear. 3 rounds, though, is silly. Especially in the Olympics. 6-8 would be reasonable.

 

IMO headgear kinda makes the generic/flawed earmuffs defence too viable and makes it hard to learn how to move your head properly on the inside in order to avoid cuts... It's not a surprise Chagaev and Solis looked better. They were fighting more frequently, seeing more looks, and were in their physical prime. Too many dudes leave too late and that goes doubly for the heavies... less rounds means too many frontrunners IMO

 

Amateur fights are no indication of a pro career. Look at Mark Breland, as good an amateur as there was, but a disappointment as a pro...

 

Its hard to argue that, especially in the coloured TV era.

Nobody is flawless & Whitaker like every other great fighter made his mistakes & paid the price sometimes for doing so but you only have to look at some of the performances he put in vs Chavez, McGirt, Ramirez, Haugen, Pineda, Cardona & Nelson (to name just a few).... those performances were pure poetry, as faultless as can be IMO & fights that I watch regularly if Im in the mood for pure boxing art, it doesnt get any higher than those fights, beautiful.

 

Breland is a disappointment as a pro because he failed to live up to almost imposiblly high expations. He won two world championships. He might not be one of the top 10 best ever as was expected. However, by normal stander he had a pretty good career.

 

Yes , but not entirely ,
so y es and no imo .

 

Whitaker was good in the Ramirez rematch too.

 

Benny Leonard....he was way ahead of his time. Very tidy and precise for his era.

 

Ironically, Benny was considered a throwback to the old english school of boxing at the time from what I've read...

 

His major weakness would be his overt showmanship.

You watch slow motion clips of chavez or oscar pinning him in the corner, throwing a ten punch combo. Pea ducks under every punch and lands two great uppercuts.

But in real time it looks like he's being effectively pressured.

Pea is as good as it gets in the modern era tho. Very few boxers make a successful challenge at both lightweight and welterweight. Even fewer rule over both divisions.

If only pea had unified with quarty and tito before "losing" to hoya, he'd probably crack everyones top ten lists.

 

Wished you posted more around these quarters, enjoy your insight.