Do you consider Pernell Whitaker "flawless"?

Absolutely not. His boxing so so very wrong.


My biggest problem is his over trust in his reflexes, i often see him not looking in the right places when he is bowed down to a virtual right angle this would be very dangerous against a big puncher who picks their shots.

 

I don't think his radar is quite as effective against speedsters who hide their shots, ie Mayweather, Hurtado, McGirt (not so quick but great timing)

 

no i do consider him a boss though

a good short+body puncher with some feints would be his downfall imo

 

He might well have been the best that ever laced'em up. Regardless if he had just over 40 fights or not. I mean a skillset level.

When it comes to skill, he's as good as it gets at his best.

 

He was under powered and used a lot of cocaine. Certainly not flawless

 

he had great defense and would have outboxed Duran at lightweight and anywhere else.

 

Not flawless, but had two great advantages, Great defensive instinct & was a Southpaw! Two formidable obsticals for any fighter to overcome. McGirt did very well in the first fight. if his shoulder had not went out, who knows?

 

McGirt always used an injury as an excuse. When he fought Meldrick Taylor, he is in the ring after beating Howard Davis and he is all cocky. When the fight with Taylor happens he comes out smoking and Taylor hits him and McGirt stops fighting in round one. I thought McGirt was an overrated fighter.

 

he was great no doubt but it's funny to see him get all this respect on the classic boards. in the mid 90s, pea was called boring by some in the media because he had no power and was not really talked about as an all-time great for the most part. 15 yrs later, he's considered by most as an top atg. i agree.

 

No, and no one is flawless. Everyone's game has weaknesses, things that they're vulnerable to, etc.

For a specific one in Pernell's case, some of the moves he pulled left him off balance and leaning the wrong way, hence his tendency to suffer flash knockdowns.

 

Whitaker was good for his times...But were to fight in the 1940s as a lightweight Pernell would be in deep waters,against the likes of a Beau Jack, Ike Williams or Bob Montgomery.These guys could punch, box, were tough and resilient each with over 100 bouts in their resume. Pernell could not hurt these guys ,and they would know it.
some posters feel that fighters of the 1940s who fought so much more often than Whitaker
maintaining their excellence over so many fights more than Pernell,is lika a baseball pitcher who has 3-4 twenty season wins, against another pitcher, who had the ability to win twenty games for over 12 years.
Being that we cannot ever match a Whitaker with an Ike Williams or a Beau Jack, nor a Henry Armstrong, I'll pick the guys who fought 3 times as many bouts against overall stiffer
competition...
As far as welterweights go, a Ray Robinson 2 almost 6 ft would have stopped Whitaker,who could avoid some two handed onslaughts by Robinson,but not for long. And Kid Gavilan at his best would have bombarded Pernell round after round and overwhelmed Whitaker with
his tireless barrages over 15 rounds. And a guy who never won a title Johnny Bratton,
Would have beaten Pernell Whitaker on hitting and flashy boxing.
Yes Whitaker was good for his times, but would have never had NEAR the success he had in his career many years later...

 

Outboxing & fustrating a cool attacker like Chavez is one thing. but these showboating tactics would infuriate Duran to fight even harder. Duran would pound out a decision win in this.

 

You know what styles matchup gets me drooling on the keyboard?

Sweet Pea vs Tszyu at 140. I'd love to see the speed, angles, and defensive wizardry against the impeccable timing, accuracy, and concussive power.

 

This. No one is flawless, but in terms of what he could do in a boxing ring. He's as good as if not better than anyone who laced'em up.