LWT FINAL - DURAN v WHITAKER

You have been consistent, but you weren't previously. Your even trying to talk your way around your first statement, which you initially did on your second and more in depth post on the matter "Whitaker not being as good as De Jesus in a boxing exhibition against Duran".

We have addressed Whitaker's lack of power on numerous ocassions. And gave the reasons why he makes up for his lack of power in other areas to beat Duran.

 

And my personal stance on the matter is...well, I don't have a clue to be honest. Whitaker was a beast, so was Duran. There's no telling what would happen until they'd step in the ring.

And prime for prime is a tricky thing -- obviously, the best strategy for Whitaker would be to avoid the pocket and pick his spots to outscore Duran and win a decision. We know Duran had more trouble with fleet-footed running than wth fighters who stood their ground. But would Whitaker know as much as we do now? Or would he do what he normally did, at least for the early rounds?

You can't control these fighters and their assets by remote. Whichever conclusion you reach here is unreliable at best, and the way you two are looking, you aren't even going to make it to one.

This would make for a fine trilogy, with perhaps both winning one going into the third. These two are as good as you'll ever find. In the end, I judge it just too close to score.

 

Stonehands. Thats where we see things differently. I don't think Whitaker needs the respectable pop to beat Duran, he wasn't a powerful puncher. He was defensive ring artist, who boxed as well as anyone who stepped through the ropes. You tend to lean towards respectale power to beat Duran, I don't.

And I got a well respected parting of the ways from yourself on the previous thread when putting forward my case for Whitaker beating Duran. And I'm pretty sure that your kind words were not put together after me ducking Whitaker's lack of power. Its been addressed many times over both threads.

 

Nice post! Just what I wanted to say but, didn't have the words or energy.

Robbi and Sweatpea, you seem to base your opinion on what we now know in hindsight as we have seen Duran's career unfold. Leonard with his talent, physical advantages and support took 1 fight to figure out Duran. I don't think at lightweight when Duran was in his absolute prime Whitaker would have figured Duran out (as no one else had previously or the capacity to) in their first encounter. Likewise, if Duran knew beforehand what Whitaker's weakness were he might have fought a different way.

Anyway, I gave it to Duran based on killer instinct. I think he will find a way as there is a demon inside him.

 

Obviously a close fight, and am strangely reminded of Chavez Whitaker and how whitakers underhand tactics helped him win the fight but how the opposite would be true against duran, whois the best light weight in my opinion. Think Duran wins close but clear ud

 

You obviously haven't been around here much. I am trying to assert what I feel is a better argument in favor of Duran -if you see that as trying to "win" then so what. Robbi and Sweet Pea are also trying to defend their argument by punching holes in mine and asserting theirs. That's how it's done. These are debates. Debates are what makes this forum fun -and if they sting a little, so what, we're talking about boxing for crying out loud.

What do you want? Polite round table discussions? That's sterile and it's boring.

 

Now that was a good shot. 'Sweet Pea' hit 'Stonehands' with a good one. How ironic!

It is merely a matter of a millisecond. Mobile boxer stands and plants and throws big shots. Whitaker will be forced to have more than a few reckonings over 15 rounds with Duran forcing the fight.

 

I offered a more involved Hatton-Mayweather analysis elsewhere and will send it your way if you want. It should relieve your suspicions about my "styles make fights" assertions and how it does indeed depend on the talent/skill level behind the style.

I suspect that Hatton will be totally outclassed by Mayweather, however, Hatton has the style that can foil him but he is going to have to be better than he has ever been before. The fact that he is moving up to WW really lessens his chances as well.

 

Your mea culpa is appreciated, but no apology is needed -we have adamant views and we defend them. It is rare that our arguments are diluted with personal stuff anyway. I think his post is asking us to replace good intellectual brawls with patty-cakes. Fahgetaboutit.

 

Come on. Of course our arguments are hypothetical! Of course we are not going to agree on the outcome!

A predictable conclusion. I would encourage you to stand up and make a choice. And then defend it against any critique that it invites.

 

I'll accept that... but I will review the threads to test this.

We are, contrary to Shake's assumption, reaching a conclusion (again) or at least a clear line of demarcation that we can all live with. You just put it in sight, but debates like these work it out naturally.

 

Duran, by close UD.

 

Punching holes in the argument of the ones you disagree with for the sake of punching holes in them is transparant and ultimately futile. If you're both completely unable to change eachothers minds on the smallest of details about this fight, opting instead to counteract one another by default, then this serves absolutely no purpose besides comparing your e-wangs.

Feel free, but if I may ask three questions (which I'd like you to answer truthfully, and not purposely to counter their intentions)

1) What do you hope to accomplish with this debate? In other words, what is your goal?
2) Is there any chance the other two posters or a possible future unknown party could convince you Whitaker would win against Duran prime for prime at lightweight?
3) Do you feel you can make them understand that Duran would win against Whitaker if your argument is good enough?

 

What an annoying milktoast post this is.

This is a boxing forum. The purpose isn't mutual masturbation, it's to learn from one another and to debate. Some debates are friendly, some get fiery, some get personal, and some are all three. Sweet Pea, Robbi, and I have done this before and if I may speak for them, we have a pretty good time doing it.

Sure, I disagree with their argument and will try to punch holes in it because that is the nature of what a debate is. If I believe that my argument is better, I will demonstrate it by carving out a position, and offering argument, and defending it by attacking my rivals' argument. Ad hominem arguments are not recommended per se, but when couched in analysis and logic it's not so offensive unless you are overly sensitive. Debates get frustrating sometimes and our humanity creeps in every now and then. So what.

Many if not most of not all posters on this site enjoy a good debate about who-would-defeat-who. You are free to join in the fun, or you can play alone... but please refrain from throwing pebbles from behind the fence.

Gladly. And you are sorely mistaken in your assumptions that I am on a crusade against Sweet Pea and Robbi. They both enhance their status in my estimatation because they have the stugatz to choose a position and defend it.

These debates almost always end well.... the only time they don't is when someone doesn't have the knowledge to engage in a debate or if they have serious underlying issues that prevent them from being reasonable. As for Sweet Pea and Robbi, I hope we can disagree more so that we can sharpen our logic and bond together as most fighters do at the last bell has rung after exchanging concussive shots.

Your questions are transparant by the way, but I will indulge you.

1.) My goal in this debate is to defend my longstanding and well-documented position that Duran is the king of the lightweights. I think he's earned that informal title and I think that his style, skill, and talent demonstrate it. A related goal is to test my position against other knowledgable posters. A third goal is to practice rhetoric, logic, argumentation, etc. intellectual stimulation if you will. A fourth goal is to have fun .

2) A loaded question which betrays more wrong-headed assumptions on your part. Before accusing someone of being stubborn, we should take care in case they are right. As per this debate, I believe that I have the better argument. They believe that they do and I see why they do. If you stay tuned you will see a settlement in the Duran-Whitaker/Whitaker-Duran debate. I have been known to soften my position and concede a point here and there, but I rarely will go head-to-head in a debate if I haven't thought things through carefully and already considered all positions.

You confuse pig-headedness with a conclusion reached reasonably and rooted in open-minded consideration.

Additionally, you seem distressed at the prospect of someone making a choice as to who would have the best record against his peers in the LW division.

3) I don't know if I can offer the right argument to convince them that Duran would be more likely to defeat Whitaker than not. That is not a goal of mine because I can respect other people's (informed) opinions even if I seek to punch holes in them.

What I cannot respect is a man who not only cannot make a stand, but reacts emotionally when other men do make a stand.