Why didn't Whitaker fight Camacho or Rosario at 135lb in late 80s?

I dont remember, I know Rosario did, I think 2 times but that was still a close fight and as much as I wanted him too get beat, I never really got the satisfaction and I have to admit the guy was a fast tricky southpaw with decent power and if he was dedicated...WHO KNOWS

 

You reckon? As always you speak of matches you never see but only read about.

 

I was being diplomatic and nice. Of course DLH put the runt down. He run like a dog most of the fight.

:good

 

It was a shame because he went from being King Kong to getting himself embarassed in front of all those VIP's from Mexico who showed up to see him destroy Pernell. It was suppossed to be his shining moment. Instead he was exposed. It was another Norris-Leonard moment.

"His sum of parts made him a fine fine fighter" Roger was not a force for many years but rather a steppingstone for many years like most other steppingstones.

You really need to think of better excuses other than his age. Didn't you tell me Roger was favored to beat Camacho at the time? Now you're telling me Rocky as challenger, two time loser at 126 is a big step up for Roger. Thomas hearns was also 22 years when he faced Leonard and went 14 in a fight he nearly won.

The difference between the two is Norris overcame his adversity then went on to make history by setting records in his own division and beating legends. Roger just went on to collect smaller and smaller paychecks as a long time steppingstone. :smoke

Excuse me for failing to be impressed but his one round knockout loss seems to make those four defenses a moot point. After all, who were those 4 defenses against, 4 nobodies?

This is too weak to comment on. atsch

Tell me again who won the fight? More revisionist history.

As for Chavez, I wouldn't call it stepping up to the plate. :nono Stepping up to the plate would be facing Hector himself instead of demanding more of Hector's leftovers. :smoke

Only an undiscriminating person such as yourself would think this. In general Hauger gets poor marks as a fighter and is least likely to be described as dangerous. What makes him dangerous if he failed to stop Whitaker or Pazineza? He didn't stop Jimmy Paul or Chavez. he lost his title in his first defense. What is it that makes him so dangerous?

 

Well i am not even going to begin to list his career accomplishments pre Whitaker for a troll like yourself. His career was well on the downside which is easy to see when looking at his extreme longevity both fightwise and timewise. The man fought many battles and didn't play the sissy like a Camacho. Yet you excuse Camacho for being over the hill at 29 with way less fights, time and worthy opponents than Chavez. Which is why of course you are a troll - but an amusing one

Just like Chavez beat Taylor, eh? And SRL schooled Hagler. And SRL beat Hearns. ETC! Revisionist history is where you excel.

You are going to have to come to terms with Hector being bugger all in the big scheme of things. The big scheme meaning peeps like Chavez and Whitaker. Funny how Camacho didn't fight either of em near their best, or Whitaker at all. Makes one wonder.......

A bit mixed up in the message are we?

And that leaves your beloved Camacho where exactly?

At least the other two beat the man!!!!

And Camacho stopped Paz? Not likely.

NEWSFLASH - Whitaker was never stopped until his very last pro fight, in which he broke his clavicle. Paz also sported proven durability. Your comment is absolutely ludicrous. But then again, what else is new?

Yeah, Chaves was easy stopped lmao!!! Chavez and Haugen both put Macho to the sword! :rofl

Greg won the title off Paul, who was considered by many to be better than Camacho after Machismo had been found out by Rosario. These are the facts of the matter.