Floyd Mayweather Jr. vs. Pernell Whitaker

Its reasonably close in both categories but I feel he has the edge in both, particularly the speed but as I say, its close enough for me to concede that I could be wrong & you right.

:thumbsup

 

So Mayweather stands no chance against the Whitaker that was messing up against Hurtado or Rivera?

And I'll challenge you again to post a round of Mayweather-DLH that DLH looked impressive and dominated, make sure you tell me how many clean punches DLH landed too. Whitaker has nothing in common with Oscar anyway and isn't quite as aggressive

I picked Whitaker here but your full of **** as ever

 

BS, Did you ever watch this fight and do you have a scorecard for it? On a 10 point system, Floyd swept the first 4-5rounds easily, he then took another 2-3rounds pretty clearly, that makes it tough to give Castillo a draw let alone a win if you actually know how to actually score a fight. To claim it is clear JLC win is frankly disingenuous and peddling a myth started by a TV commentator who lacks any boxing sense

BTW note Whitaker was a fair amount bigger than Nelson and Chavez when he fought them and they were coming up in weight. Mayweather was smaller than Castillo and DLH and he was coming up in weight. That is a big difference to any unbiased poster. I suspect most would pick a 135lb Castillo over 135lb Nelson and a 154lb DLH over a 144lb Chavez

 

:good

 

This would be a close razor thin decision I could see either man taking...however, given his slight height and reach advantage, I'll give a slight edge to Floyd.

 

It's a question of styles mate. Styles make fights. You should have heard of that by now considering the amount of time you are on here.

Also, Mayweather never really impressed at 147 either. Mitchell and Baldomir were rubbish, Floyd had trouble with Judah, he took 10 rounds to dispatch Ricky Hatton at a weight Ricky was proven to be poorer at (Collazo fight) and then Pac blitzed Ricky in less than 6 minutes at his optimum weight, and Floyd was poor at 154 v Oscar.

Floyd was NOT the same fighter at 147 that he was at 130. Whitaker was a better welterweight than Floyd on his best nights. He beat better fighters and looked better doing it.

Is that it??

Is that your reasoning for Floyd "schooling" Oscar, that Oscar didn't dominate any single round?

My reasoning for saying Floyd was poor that night is because he fought way below his best. He was languid, lethargic, inhibited and unconvincing, hence the SD and the fact that the fight itself is often referred to as a flop/snorefest.

Floyd did nothing in the first half of the fight, then won a few rounds clearly in the second half.

Wow, what a schooling. atsch

Watch Mayweather v Corrales chump. That was a schooling. That was Mayweather at his best. Against Oscar he was a shadow of that man.

It is a damning indictment of Floyd's performance that night that Oscar didn't need to win any round big or land many clean punches in order to make it close on the scorecards. On the 10-point must system, Oscar was awarded rounds in the first half of that fight simply for being the only man doing anything! He wasn't dominating but he was active and more aggressive. Floyd was lying on the ropes achieving absolutely nothing.

Only a blind lover like you could be impressed by that, as you obviously were since those rounds make up part of your "schooling".

My point wasn't anything to do with a similarity between Whitaker and Oscar, it was merely that Floyd was so poor against Oscar that I cannot envisage that version even being a threat to Pea, but since you mention there being no similarity between them, actually there clearly is a great and significant similarity:

JAB.

Oscar's jab gave Floyd problems in the first half of the fight (whether you are too blind to see that or not), then he stopped throwing it. Like Oscar, Pea has a superb jab, and he wouldn't just stop throwing it like Oscar did.

Your knowledge is blunted by your irrational man-love.

 

My mate has my Floyd dvd's (I don't have his career set but I have a good few of his world title fights). Once he gives me them back, I'll re-watch the fight and post my scorecard.

Considering that you think the Oscar-Floyd fight was a "schooling", Floyd could have been dropped once a round every round against Castillo and you'd still say he sneaked a UD.

Castillo won that fight loverboy.

atsch Dreadful comment. Just because someone gains a couple of pounds for a fight does not mean he is a "fair amount" smaller. Whitaker had no size advantage over Chavez. Neither man had a size advantage in that fight, size wasn't an issue, even though Chavez looked like the bigger man in the ring that night.

Floyd had no real size disadvantage against Castillo. Again: Just because someone gains a couple of pounds for a fight does not mean he is a "fair amount" smaller.

He did have a size disadvantage against Oscar. Against a years past-prime Oscar. It was much like the size advantage that a years past-prime Pernell Whitaker faced when he fought a prime Oscar.

How do you know, did you ask one?

Obviously Castillo was a far more proven lightweight than Nelson. Would he beat him h2h at 135? That's very debatable. Nelson was definitely a vastly superior fighter p4p though.

You think fighting the 2007 version of De La Hoya at 154 was a greater challenge than fighting a 1993 version of Chavez between lww and ww?

Sober up.

 

Floyd arguably lost though, do you at least accept that? It doesn't sound like you do accept that, which really to me sounds like you are being disingenuous too.

From a stylistic standpoint, I think Nelson and Chavez would pose more problems at 135 and 147 respectively to Mayweather than what Castillo and DLH did to Mayweather at the weights he fought them at.

 

Its a pity Mayweather suffers the yoke of modern historians. He is an extremely skilled fighter. While his mouth and antics are poor they should not detract from his actions in the ring.

Mayweather is a bit more active on attack. It has been my observation that the very skilled and fast out fighters are hard to counter. Whitaker is not going to make Floyd miss and counter with ease.

I like Mayweather on points, because I think he would throw more, and land more. Mayweather likely hit a tad harder too.

By the way I think the match would be much better at 147. 154 is a good fit for neither boxer.

 

1. I know styles make fights, I think however Whitaker performed poorly against Rivera/Hurtado because he wasnt at the races, was past prime, drug addicted and simply not at his best. This version loses if he shows up the same against FMJ, not that he would as he'd train harder

2. Mayweather lost around 6 rounds out of 40rounds in 4 WW fights. BTW Hatton is better at 147 than he is at 140 as he doesn't have to drain as much, he just isn't as good against men with a size advantage, Mayweather didnt have a size advantage however. And FMJ isn't a puncher either, is a safety first fighter who likes to feel his man out sometimes but I say he beat a better version of Hatton and DLH

3. Yes but not against Rivera and Hurtado he wasn't and your initial overstated claim was 'any version of Whitaker beats Mayweather'

4. Not only did Oscar not dominate a round, its hard to pick rounds he won if you look exclusively at effective punching and what actually landed in each round. Mayweather did dominate rounds, was never really hit, so it was a clear win. A schooling is an exageration but he was well outboxed on offense and defense. The claim 'it was an SD', yes it was but the judge who scored it to Oscar was well well off. Floyd is a safety first fighter, should we hold this against him? He still outlanded Oscar in every round

5. He still landed clean effective punches in every round, there is no justification for giving DLH rounds on the basis he threw and missed punches because thats all he did. Again Mayweather feels out a bigger man and fights cautiously, thats his MO 147 and above, its not always pretty but its effective

6. Floyd fights safety first and managed to outland Oscar is every round. Who says Floyd can't up his game? Maybe he can if need be. Again the Hurtado and Rivera fights were worse performances from Whitaker

7/8. Ofcourse Whitaker's jab is a weapon, he has many weapons to trouble and beat Floyd it doesn't mean he would when not at his best. But then again Oscars jab very very rarely landed

9. I must man love Whitaker even more given I pick him here

 

1. Fair play but pay attention to clean effective punching

2. No chance, JLC came on strong in the second half of the fight, but you can't win a fight fighting for 7rounds and losing 1/2 - 1/3 of them

3. Ofcourse size matters Castillo and DLH didn't gain a couple of fights, try gaining 15lbs, that sort of size makes a big difference. And yes I think a huge JLC is a tougher fight than a smaller Nelson and I think a 166lb DLH of 2007 is harder for a WW than a 143lb Chavez of 1993. I'd pick DLH to beat that Chavez largely based on size. I don't think a size difference made a difference in Whitaker-Chavez BUT Whitaker was more comfortable at 147 and Chavez was a small WW

4. Floyd was outweighed on the night by 15lbs, did Lamotta have no size advantage over Robinson?

5. Because Oscar had fought at 160lbs 2 fights ago and 3 fights ago Floyd comfortably made 140lbs. Plus DLH outweighed him by 15-20lbs

6. I think JLC beats Nelson at 135 certainly

 

1. I know its arguable JLC won, I think people focus on the myth of the 'robbery' and base their scoring on commentary. Turn the commentary and see who landed the most effective cleaner shots each round and FMJ wins more rounds, JLC wins a few bigger though perhaps

2. I think FMJ beats Nelson and Chavez at 135 and 147, weights were neither fighter beat any ranked contenders. He may not be as emphatic as Whitaker against Nelson but against Chavez I actually think he does as well

 

Mayweather can't handle precise, accurate punchers. He's too defensive and obsessed with his "Pretty-boy" puristic image to throw sufficient punches to win this one. He'd allow Sweet Pea to get off and lose a UD.

 

If ever there was a comment which was a dictionary definition of horrible mentally-ingrained bias, this is it.

What makes you think Hatton was better at 147, the way he was outclassed, dominated and knocked out by Floyd or the way he doddered around the ring like he'd had a bottle of vodka against Collazo and got a decision he didn't deserve?

Were those two fights (his only fights at 147) better Hatton performances than punching p4p#3 Kostya Tszyu to a standstill, knocking JL Castillo out in only 4 rounds, or barely losing a round to Malignaggi or Urango?


Ricky Hatton says he is better at 140, his dad says he is better at 140, Billy Graham says he is better at 140, Floyd Mayweather Sr says he is better at 140, ****ing Pope Benedict XVI says he is better at 140, everyone with eyes on the planet Earth knows he is better at 140...

The only person I have ever, EVER heard in my life (either on ESB or in the outside world) say that Ricky Hatton was better at 140 is... you.

Now, why could that be I wonder????


Seriously mate, it's beyond a joke. You need to get rid of that Floyd shrine in your bedroom, and start interacting with the real world.

Can't really be bothered going on. When faced with such insane deep-rooted blinding bias, it's a complete waste of time.

 

Powerpuncher. You need to check out De La Hoya-Mayweather again. Just check out the amount of punches De La Hoya blocks with his high guard. To say that De La Hoya never won a round decisively is utter nonsense.