If your going to be really stringent, I'd say crossing his feet. Though this is bound to happen with the strategies he's doing with his footwork. Also, like all defensive greats, he could go into a lull and appreciate his own work way too much.
The admiring his own work point is a good one. Unfortunately, when he did that his opponents often seemed to follow suit.
I wouldn't say he had so little power that you could classify it as a "flaw." He wasn't Tysonesque, but you couldn't just walk in on him either. He's make you respect him. I think a big factor in his relatively low KO percentage (if that's any indicator) is that Pea fought at so high a level from such an early point in his career. Really good fighters just aren't that easy to take out, you know?
He was a defensive genius no doubt and he fought at a high level so yeah, I was being a little facetious. But if someone was looking for a weakness in his game, that would be an obvious one. When people describe a fighter as "complete", then they mean he could do everything, including punch. So his power was a weakness relative to his other gifts.
He was knocked down a lot and yet very rarely visibly hurt, I have to wonder if some of the time he had awesome composure and a great poker face.
As others have said he tended to lag for a bit and admire his own work and defense, although not as lackadaisical as someone like James Toney. His footwork is not always the most balanced, which is why he's been knocked down a few times before even at his best. I also think that Disobelys Hurtado, even though he ended up getting stopped by Pea while winning the fight, showed that Whitaker wasn't the best at being the come forward aggressor and that a guy like Sugar Ray Leonard would be able to beat Whitaker using faster footwork.
Still can't believe. RIP I'd say his power and his footwork at times. He was kind of boring too and a bit of nutsack hunter.
He was too good for his own good really. HE made boxers look foolish. Funny because he was known as a pretty good body puncher- as Buddy about that. De La Hoya was controversial. Rameriez 1 was robbery as was Chavez. Trinadad he was shot to bits ans STILL went the distance with a known knockout puncher who was in his prime. He gave the great Azumha a boxing lesson winning all but MAYBE 3 rounds. Went way up in weight and beat Vasquez- the same Vasquez who beat Winky. Watch him close on the inside and watch how he sneaks shots into the body that slows his opponents down.
I like Pea more and he's the better boxer overall but De La Hoya fought him well and won fair and square.
If you tried to bully Pernell, his ego wouldn't let him keep boxing. He'd become obsessed with proving he could win in tie ups. Lost him more than one fight against the bigger guys.