At the risk of getting blackballed on the board, lol, I'm not as overwhelmed by Whitaker as everyone else seems to be. He was a great fighter no doubt. He beat a lot of very good fighters. I don't think any of the guys listed were great fighters (Chavez was an ATG but a little past it and 2 weights above his best). Nelson (an ATG) was never really a lightweight. McGirt is the best win(s) of that bunch and the first fight was very close. I don't think he was a complete fighter because he didn't have enough of a punch. He never knocked out anyone of note unless you think highly of Nazario. I don't think he had the firepower to keep Duran off of him. I think it would be an ugly fight with Whitaker resorting to some of his tricks (which I felt were beneath him) such as going so low as to practically be on the canvous. But I just think Duran would mug him. I'd give a very solid technician and all arounder such as Ortiz a good shot against him. I think great, tough movers with a good jab such as Laguna (Buchanan) give him a different look and have a decent shot against him. Was he better than Benny Leonard? A great mover with a better punch? Whitaker is a great fighter, I just think slightly overrated.
Whitaker wasn't as physically strong as some of the other top lightweights (Duran, Ortiz, Chavez, Armstrong, Williams, Jack) and didn't have top level punching power (Williams, Arguello, Rosario, Gans) but what made him so diverse and so hard to beat are two things which are rare for pure boxers: The first is the high workrate, which Mante has already mentioned. The other thing he had which was hard to deal with was his inside game. Even when stronger fighters walked him down and got him where they wanted him, they still couldn't adequately get the better of him because his inside game was so proficient. And it was the type of inside game that he used not only against aggressive fighters that came towards him, but boxer types too. For instance, just yesterday I was watching the first Whitaker-McGirt fight and over the first half of the fight Buddy is the quicker fighter and Pernell is actually struggling to hit him clean with head shots. So Whitaker actually walks down the bigger McGirt and made an in-fight out of it. Even though he lost some rounds whilst trying to slug to the body, it was the inside work that eventually slowed Buddy down and allowed Whitaker to start boxing where he reeled off about 5 straight rounds in a row which eventually won him the fight. You just don't see pure boxers doing something like that, especially against larger opponents. As an aside the HBO commentary for that fight is pretty disgraceful. I'm talking of course about George Foreman and his constant drivel about how going to the body is irrelevant in this fight, and how Whitaker is doing everything in retaliation instead of getting off first (when Whitaker was actually walking down McGirt and trying to impose himself on him). Big George's idiocy is captured in this quote of his: "This bout is even and in my mind McGirt has won". Just stfu Big G.
Remember his youthful days when he had those great legs and could dip and get his rear about 1.5 feet from the canvas? And punch out of that position even? Those opponents would fire away and miss and the guy was literally a low crab in there giving nothing as a target but the top of his head. Even when those great legs went, he still had other skills to go to & didn't drop out of his winning ways just because a major facet of his game was gone. How many other guys pull that off anyway? Take away a great asset & still go out and get the results?
I think Pernell was a respectable puncher. Wuldn't make anyone scared of attempting to walk through him but had the right combination of speed, variety and precision to take his opponent out of their gameplan and begin to dictate on his own terms. Keeping his opponents smart kept it in his realm. Least that's the way I see it anyway. He certainly has some brutal stoppages....takes some shots to put people away but what shots they are, Pea never let an opponent off the hook once he had them, whether he put them away or put on a masterclass. In terms of all-round ability, top 3 for me. Just unbelievable to watch him on film.
Better head-to-head than his resume suggests. I really appreciate fighters that can adjust because you have to beat them three times in one night before you get the job done. Loved that dip he did after jabbing. You know the one.
Having thoughts about Whitaker and how good he was are we? I made a very similar thread a while back if you remember. Everyone goes through these phases of just being in awe of the man. It's not about styles for me, it's simply that the man was so so good.
I'm high on Whitaker. I just love his strengths and style. Even though he wasn't known for his power, his jabs sure were very accurate telegraph poles. Whitaker relied on his defense, jabbing at long range, and also his inside game. He's right up there with the most skilled boxers ever to lace'em up.
I don't think Whitaker was exclusively a defensive minded boxer, in terms of his style. Sure he was against Azumah Nelson, jabbing off the backfoot all night. But he turned in performances where he was a boxer, not a defensive minded one. He'd dominate mid ring with his jab and circular movement, rather than lateral or backpedalling, and he simply had a great defense as one of his many assets, combos and bodyshots being others of such. Just thought i'd express that opinion. Just for the armchair fans who talk about his eing a runner and other crap.
Oh yes, one of my favorite of his techniques. Executed perfectly twice here from 6:25 to 6:32. And again from 7:08 to 7:15. [yt]rs9GcxZ2oRY[/yt]
Time for me to capitalise on the moment Classic Forum Style, (just as i did in My2Sense's Napoles thread a bit back), here it is- WHO THINKS HE'D BEAT MAYWEATHER THEN?
Whitaker was a different class of fighter in my honest opinion. Not much better, but clearly more versatile and effective nonetheless. He holds all the cards in a matchup with Lil' Floyd.