Just something i'd like to say about Pernell Whitaker....

Humbled would be the word! In both instances in different ways, i believe greatness just played it's part on both occasions, just out of his depth. Chavez was bouncing hooks off his ribcage, didnt look nice!

 

No doubt, that was a savage beatdown Julio dispensed.

I always admired Haugen's courage though. Who the hell else would fight Julio Cesar Chavez in front of 130,000 of his minions and come out to the tune of 'Born in the USA'.

Gold.

 

:good

 

The feeling that he was superior to go along with his bitterness just does'nt go hand in hand imo.

If Whitaker was feeling this sense of superiority, and knowing the fact that he'd been superior in his mind but robbed on the cards......
.....why did'nt this man make sure he left all of his superiorness in the ring???


The one thing I feel Whitaker was superior in, was his ability to evade......but there's too many other intangibles, particularly on the effective offensive end that I feel he sorely lacked in.

My thoughts may sour alot of you guys.....but I'm calling it as I see it.

No doubt Whitaker had a belief in himself and his gifts, but I thought he was very negligent to other parts of his craft that were not part of his defense.

In professional boxing, a judge puts alot of weight on aggression and willful punching. Meaning a judge gives more credence to a fighters offensive effort, when he's punching with leverage on his shots (not particularly power, but leverage.)

Whitaker I feel was negligent and ignored that part of his game.
Scientist would like to think that Whitaker was having pity, or just making his opponent suffer prolongly.....
...but I say different. When you're as defensive as Whitaker, they dont want to expose themselves to harms way.....and Whitaker never quite got that sometimes against the better fighters in the game, it was required!

As I write this, I'm still cognizant of Whitaker's special gifts, and yes, I respect him as a great.
.....sorry I had to spoil this Whitaker orgie, but I just thought it was getting just a tad out of hand!

Let me have it guys!

 

atsch atsch

 

It helped that Pea fit the bracket of brilliant boxer who could also take a superb shot. He wasn't susceptable to the out of the blue big punch winning or turning the fight. Many a guy has been ahead on points then hammered down late ala Louis - Conn for example. This wasn't happening to Whitaker.

 

Perhaps he thought that the judges would actually pay attention to the lessons he was dispensing. He didn't need to do anything more than what he did to Ramirez and Chavez.

A fight like Chavez-Whitaker is recognised as a robbery for a reason, and it's not because people hate Julio Cesar Chavez, which is a card you've been pulling here quite often Vlade, or becuase they are merely Pernell Whitaker fans, or because young fans who haven't seen the fight just read Sports Illustrated (lmfao@that reason, the lamest of all - as if they would get any other impression of the fight if they read Ring, KO, World Boxing, Boxing Illustrated, Boxing 93 or any other publication printed outside Mexico).

And it's not because of the biased call of the fight either. Ferdie Pacheco was the biggest Chavez nuthugger of all time and he had the fight close, but even he had the good sense to know who won that fight. Just be thankful that intelligent fight callers like Larry Merchant and Al Bernstein weren't calling the fight, because they had it scored 9-3 and 10-2 respectively :good

Whitaker could have gone out of his way to make a better case in the DLH fight, but he was past his best by then, and still arguably did enough to win. Most ringside scribes and more fans than not on these boxing forums seem to think that he did.

Some judges, for whatever reason, fail to see the distinction between aggression and effective aggression. It's as simple as that. Whitaker beat up Chavez and Ramirez on a round by round basis worse than they beat him up. Anyone that is honest with themselves will admit that. That he did it whilst on the backfoot made some hate him and question his courage, which is why they favoured guys like Ramirez and Chavez. There's no question Whitaker landed the better shots ON A ROUND BY ROUND basis. Whitaker's offense against someone like Chavez might not have been superb, but it has to be looked relative to Chavez's offence. Whose was better? Whitaker's of course. And ON A ROUND BY ROUND basis, of course.

Outside of a robbery like when? DLH-Whitaker is the only questionable fight. And again, I hardly think that its the best fight to look at when judging Whitaker, for he was past his best.

 

Please direct me to a better pure boxer on film. And no, I'm not interested in watching Sandy Sadlder kick Pep's ass AGAIN :good

 

If Whitaker was on old black and white film from the 40's doing his work identically the same as he did 15-20 years ago SuzieQ49 and Stonehands89 among others would probably see him in the same light as Pep or better. It scares me to think how they would see him with over 100 fights on his record to go with that as well. Pep fought a load of muppets throughout his 200+ fights.

IMO Whitaker's percentage of resume outdoes Pep's. Keeping busy and fighting often seems to be the be all and end all to some. Pep's record looks brilliant on paper. With Whitaker fighting club fighters mostly every time he stepped into the ring with a few expections he'd rack up an incredible record on paper to rivals Pep's. He certainly had the skills and durability to do it.

 

I agree, Sweet Pea lived up to his name, one of the most skilled, ever.

He even said so himself: "If I don't want God to hit me, he won't".

 

Whitaker is a great fighter I never enjoyed. Found his style dull and he just did not have enough offense for my particular tastes. There were many fighters during his era that were more exciting and intersting to watch, maybe not as skilled but just a better view. Watching Pea's spotty work rate, jab, jab duck **** around and jab was dull. Its one of the major reasons why he got the shaft so often. I recognize the greatness that others saw but he left me cold.

 

Exellent post!

I appreciated what Whitaker could do, but I always got the sense that he could do alot more on the offensive end.
......he was to pre-occupied with not getting hit, that he neglected the offensive side of the game, mainly punching with leverage and aiming to cause damage.

......and the thing with Whitaker is why did he not put more leverage on his shots when clearly he had a good beard to absorb a shot if he made a mistake on the offensive end where it could lead to someone countering his mistake?
He must have not been to confident in his ability to absorb a good shot if he made a mistake.

We all know that when a fighter is punching with leverage, he becomes more suceptible to getting hit on the counter........but its one of the reasons that judges reward the fighter who punches with leverage, and when he's taking the risk and can get away with not getting hit, why not reward that fighter more than one that does'nt take the risk?

Lets be real and call it like it is. Pernell Whitaker had a good beard, and could dish a solid shot, but he was'nt a risk taker and preffered to take away from his shots so that he there would'nt be an opportunity that an opponent could take advantage of.

Whitaker had the ability to do alot better and cause alot more damage on the offensive end, but he was'nt a risk taker......imo he did it by choice......
.......and its too bad, because in PROFFESIONAL BOXING, you get rewarded accordingly!

 

Divac, your original post, maybe i never explained properly, but i never meant his bitterness quite went in hand in hand with his superiority all of the time, but i did get the impression when he turned on the aggrssion, u know the ones im talking about, when he looked evil and posessed, that he was expressing his bitterness and taking it all out on the guy in front.

Just to let u know what i meant.

 

Whitaker was an exceptional fighter, one of the top ten pound for pound of the second half of the 20th century but he was a bit boring at times and he was not a big puncher ... he hit hard enough to gain respect but not a huge hitter ... he was extremely confident and never really took a beating in his whole career ... he proved his heart and toughness late in his career by fighting tough fights with prime Oscar and Tito when he was clearly past his own best ..

 

What kind of fighters do you enjoy the most then ?