Hearns vs. Whitaker at 147 15 rds.

Though it's unlikely, there's nothing rediculous in claiming that Whitaker lasts the distance with Hearns.

There are four obstacles that Whitaker faces: height, reach, speed and power.

In terms of height, Whitaker has faced tall fighters before and done ok with them (e.g. Mayweather, Pendleton, Pineda, DLH, Trinidad) but Hearns is taller than anyone he has faced. Who knows if this will cause a problem Pea can't counteract.

In terms of reach, Whitaker has taken on fighters with longer reach and beaten them in the past, e.g. Mayweather, Pendleton, Pineda and arguably DLH. But never quite the reach of Hearns. Who knows if he can get inside his reach effectively enough and get out before Hearns retaliates. It will be hard to do, no question.

In terms of speed, Whitaker has faced quick fighters and made them look silly before (e.g. DLH, McGirt) but Hearns is quicker than anyone Whitaker has ever faced, and who knows if he can evade his shots. It will force Pea to be more defensively astute than he has ever had to be.

When it comes to power, the fact of the matter is that Pea was never knocked out and though he'd be facing a superior offensive machine to any he ever faced, we don't know for sure how he would react to it. As has been said by Sweet Pea, Whitaker fought Trinidad when his defense was gone, and he took Trinidad's punches. He wasn't dodging them, he was eating 50% of whatever Trinidad threw. So we know that Whitaker is resilient. That Tito had him hurt on numerous occasions doesn't bode well though.

IMO its possible that Whitaker meets all these obstacles well enough to last the distance, but there's a lot of obstacles there, and when taken together there's plenty of reasons to suggest he'll fail one of the tests. That said, I wouldn't be shocked to see him on his feet at the end of the fight, though I would be shocked if I don't see him on the canvas at least once or twice throughout the encounter.

 

Hearns is a worst possible style matchup for anyone..He couldnt have been the greatest without his chin

 

Couldn't agree more. If you read my previous analysis, It's the same as yourself, although constructed differently.

I said at the end. Stoppage, maybe points.

 

:good

 

Can you whip up a link to this previous encounter Robbi so we can have a read.

 

I don't have it, it was a couple of months back. It was brief response from myself to one of his posts saying " you must be joking" however I can't mind accurately, then I got back "watch to whom you provoke". Very strong words which alarmed me. Instead of me firing back angrily, I took the heat out of the situation by replying back "I wasn't provoking you, just disagreeing with you".

Stonehands then replied back saying " I thought you were provoking, some people on here with a lack of knowledge get personal when they can't come up with anything decent, and your not one of them".

 

I'll find it after golf then, won't be hard. Sounds pretty armless.

 

JT. Stonehands took me the wrong way, thats about the size of it. It has been water under the bridge, and never had a problem with him ever since. Our "Whitaker v Duran" debate a few days ago was nothing but fair and constructed points back and forth objectively towards each other.

As you know JT, I'm only on here to discuss boxing.

 

Stonehands mentioned Foreman regaining the title off Moorer as the greatest sports achievement ever. You said

He said

He took your comment personally and responded, it's all pretty tame. You called his opinion on the matter "beyond a joke". You don't see how that might offend him?

 

JT. How that can be taken personally is beyond me, totally. That was my problem, he took it personally.

"I can agree with you having it as the greatest win in sports, but to have it as your greatest "performance" is beyond a joke".

Thats disagreeing with his point, even though I said "but to have it as your greatest "performance" is beyond a joke". Doesn't even deserve a response of "And you should take care with whom you provoke".

Provoke is the word I found alarming.

Whats after that?

 

"your an idiot" that deserves a response of "And you should take care with whom you provoke".

That kind of reply would deserve a counter back from Stonehands in the manner he did.

I'll say one thing thing JT, we are all grown up and big adults. Lets be real here, that aint provoking. Not in my book anyway, maybe my skin is thicker than others.

 

JT. "beyond a joke". Those words on closing my response to his post were just based on how much i disagreed with his assessment on "Foreman regaining the title off Moorer as the greatest sports performance ever".

"Stonehands mentioned Foreman regaining the title off Moorer as the greatest sports achievement ever"

Nope, he said the greatest performance, not greatest achievement. As you'll see I could agree with that, but not the greatest performance.

 

Hearns also had excellent footwork. He would be able to move in and out of range quite easily. He could pounce like a cat. Whitaker might have superior head movement but, his body could not move as fast. The fight's not even going to be close. Either by landslide or ko.

 

Sweet pea,we obviously disagree on our in depth points and our logic,thats fine....
However,please give me an analysis of how exactly whitaker would fight with hearns,ie would he run,dance,stand in the pocket and try to make tommy miss,try to outjab hearns,brawl,etc? Im fascinated by what method you think pea will use to try to beat hearns without getting into trouble...And if pea gets in trouble or knocked down (which you seem to be saying.) then you think hearns cannot finish him at 147?
Sweet scientist raised many points relating to what whitaker would have to overcome in relation to hearns,there is also the fact that hearns at 147/154 was pretty damn elusive himself and had the reflexes and footwork of a cat,he didnt need the upper body jinking of pea because he preferred to give himself space to outjab,outreach and outpunch his opponents rather than crowd himself and give his opponents opportunities in the pocket...The opponents that pea fought were nowhere near the style,power,speed,size or class of hearns...Yet hearns opponents were definately in the class and better than pea...
Given you think whitakers defense make him survive then you may also think floyd could stand in the pocket v hearns and survive due to his atg defense?
Do you think there is any fighter in the history of the sport that could stop whitaker at 147? Robinson,ray leonard?
Finally,name me any natural lightweight in history that you feel could go 15 with a peak 147 tommy without resorting to a totally defensive running fight and hence not really giving themselves a proper chance to win?

 

Hearns would dominate and shut out Pernell Whitaker. Whitakers defence, chin and heart would see to it he goes the full 15. Ultimately though he has NOTHING for Hearns.