Nelson Vs whitaker

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by Robot16, Aug 16, 2007.

  1. JohnThomas1

    JohnThomas1 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2005
    Messages:
    55,041
    Likes Received:
    49,086
    A great big man always beats a great little one they say. That's what happened, as Ezzard alludes to.
     
  2. Robbi

    Robbi Marvelous Full Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    15,280
    Likes Received:
    254
    JT. Watch the video clip above, they look the same size. Nelson taller, but overall body mass even. Neck, shoulders, waist, legs, etc.

    Just because Nelson was moving up, it makes everyone think that on the night he was the smaller man, when he clearly wasn't. If anyone watched that fight without knowing anything about boxing they would not come to the conclusion Nelson was the "smaller" man.

    "A great big man always beats a great little one". Most of the time. But I would not use that phrase for Whitaker beating Nelson.

    Nothing to do with being a Whitaker fan, hence the avatar.
     
  3. Mantequilla

    Mantequilla Boxing Addict Full Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2004
    Messages:
    4,964
    Likes Received:
    84
    Nelson did look strong as hell and perfectly comfortable at the weight against Whitaker.

    he was just never in Whitaker's class even at his very best.
     
  4. JohnThomas1

    JohnThomas1 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2005
    Messages:
    55,041
    Likes Received:
    49,086
    You guys both miss the point, Nelson was never a natural lightweight, not at all. Both weighing 135 fight night means nothing in the context of my statement, which has long been boxing lore. Sanchez - Gomez, Gomez - Zarate, Arguello - Pryor, Spinks - Tyson, Charles - Marciano, the list is endless.
     
  5. JohnThomas1

    JohnThomas1 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2005
    Messages:
    55,041
    Likes Received:
    49,086
    Well you still don't quite follow but i'll leave it at that

    :good