Hearns vs. Whitaker at 147 15 rds.

No way Pete ever admits he loses to Tommy!

That tells us right there that it's not him...

 

This is not at all true Pea, Stonehands has conceded certain points to me in the odd debate and very willingly proclaimed it. Many a time i've seen him digest what someone is saying and alter his opinion slightly. The thing is, it's gotta be a damn good point as he has gone to great lengths to formulate his own opinions and views. The couple of times Stonehands and Meta5 have got together in debate has been something to behold.

 

I once disagreed with Stonehands on a matter which was soley boxing related. He replied back and said "watch to whom you provoke". From his reaction it seems he never liked my difference of opinion. He just took me the wrong way, not sure why to be honest.

Well, I sure aint here to provoke anyone. I'm here to chat about boxing, and boxing only.

 

No doubt it was a misunderstanding of your intentions mate. You come across wrong, he took it wrong, whatever. I see you two swapping plenty of debate and copliment the last few days, so i can't see the drama.

 

Your emotional reaction indicates that I've touched a nerve. Your feelings are irrelevant to me and everyone else on this forum -so please be considerate and limit your temper tantrums to your therapist's office. Formulate argument and retorts with an eye on facts and reasoning because your post only confirms suspicions about your lack of objectivity.

I will "stick to my opinions" only so long as there are no better arguments out there. Try that approach. JohnThomas, Meta5, Manassa, Duodenum and a few others have forced me to concede points or amend my position.

 

Your memory is faulty.

When someone responds to a post you craft as a "joke" -it's a provocation. So you got called on it. Contrary to your friend "Sweet Pea's" accusation, I'm not trying to get "intimidating" -nor do I get emotional about it. However, provocations aren't free. So, here's the lesson: there are quite a few posters out here besides me that know their stuff and take care to craft thoughtful responses -if someone retorts with nonsense or gets personal, they should be prepared for counters. And these counters are not supposed to feel good.

 

Stonehands. My point was put forward and wasn't provoking in any manner whatsoever. I disagreed with you, and you took it as "being provoked" you later gave ground and thought I was trying to aggravate you, you then went onto say something like "some people on here with no knowledge tend to get personal, your not one of them". I wasn't getting personal, something Im never guilty of on here Im afraid.

"thoughtful responses" I would like to think I get the thumbs up in that area.

One of the reasons I post on the classic forum, because its full of sensible observers who know boxing well. The general forum on the otherhand is full of people who are outrageous with their views, and a large amount are nuthuggers.

 

It certaintly isn't.

 

Sweet pea,when it comes to whitaker you dont have enough objectivity.....
The three posters whose comments i read most are you,robbi and stonehands...(by virtue of chance and an appreciation of duran.)
I think stonehamds opinions are very well crafted,insightful,objective and knowledgable,i feel robbi is reasonable at times,but honestly i find yourself very emotional,biased and thinking that your OPINIONS are fact.....Knowing you,you wont take this as constructive criticism but will either insult or ignore.....Good day.....

 

I have read many of your posts,im not basing my view on just this thread....Stoonehands posts are well crafted,just because he fired a broadside at you doesnt make him any less a poster at all,maybe you dont appreciate the sarcasm,humour and home truths you received from him.....Ive seen you insult many in the general forum and resort to gutter talk,ive also seen you act all arrogant and know it all....
I find a lot of your arguements and logic are just fitting the facts to your case rather than the other way round....
ps; how can sweet pea avoid being stopped by the hardest punching welter of all times with lightning speed,huge reach,height and size advantages and a rapier like jab? Pea doesnt have the punch to stop hearns,nor the jab and pea wont run away as he has no chance to win if he does this...If he stands in the pocket and tries to duck and jink he will eventually eat right hands,sharp jabs and left hooks,and if he tries to trade he will definately be knocked out clean...Comparing trinidads offense to hearns is just silly,hearns is three times faster than tito,and sets up his artillery behind the jab,just ask duran....

pps;dont the mods vet the guys who frequent the general forum before they post in the classic section???!!!!!:hat

 

How on earth can you compare whitaker at what 5 ft 7 and a natural lightweight with benitez and leonard who are both 5 ft 10/11 and natural or solid at 147? This is where your bias comes in,whitaker does not defy the laws of physics,if he is trying to win against hearns he must engage at some stage and he does not have the height or reach to keep out of trouble when doing this....Leonard had height and a 74 inch reach,benitez had height as well,not to mention that both were truely great boxers,especially leonard...
I appreciate whitakers tremendous skills at his weight,he beat one of my favorites at the time (jc chavez.) convincingly and like no other,but chavez was pretty much the same size as sweet pea and does not belong in the same sratosphere as hearns as far as welterweight offense is concerned...
You base whitakers ability to survive hearns punches by one 'beating' he took at the hands of trinidad? Well isnt that a pretty much direct comparison of hearns and trinidad offense wise? I feel trinidads punches are much easier to avoid by a slickster than avoiding someone like hearns punches,because the hit mans punches are much faster,are set up with a jab and the truth be told are harder...How come duran lasted 15 with marvin yet was blown out in two by hearns? For the exact same reason that hearns' offense is quicker than marvins,more powerful and set up by a rapier jab along with huge reach and height advantages,which by the way is one of the reasons why duran could not avoid the shots and leonard and benitez could...
Tell me also,what is to stop tommy from letting go of his bombs against sweet pea? Sweet peas awesome power and huge reach? Hearns dropped bombs against cuevas,duran,hagler and leonard and they all had the firepower to hurt him,pea does not.....How do you feel pea would do on the inside versus tommys left hook and body attack? (and please dont compare the much slower,much less powerful and smaller chavez with tommys body attack) How does pea land his jab when nobody ever outjabbed tommy from leonard to hill? How does pea get tommys respect in there,by his resume,his reputation,your inflated opinion of him?
Humour me oh great pea......

 

Hearns wins.

Whitaker, for all his silky skills, cannot outbox him -- Hearns' massive reach, blistering speed and scary power (especially the straight right) will frustrate Pea at every turn. Pea can certainly make Hearns miss far more than usual, like Benitez was able to do, but simply surviving/pulling off beautiful defensive moves isn't enough to win a fight. Thus, when Pea discovers that he cannot, much to his surprise/dismay, outbox Hearns, I think he'll try and engage him up close and attempt to make it an in-fight, which he was actually very skilled at when he needed to do so. The problem is that he doesn't have the power needed (when at this close range) to exploit Hearn's infamous weakness, that delicate chin, and so although he'll fare better than he would boxing on the outside, he'll still lose out. As a result, I would back Hearns via UD for the ultimate result.

I lean in the direction of him not being able to knock Pea out (although with his skills, speed and power, you can NEVER completely rule this outcome out) because of Pea's defensive prowess and very real durability in both the mental and physical sense. He may get knocked down more than once, but I see him making it to the finishing line. As I said before, though, you can never completely rule out a knockout whenever Hearns is concerned -- he really was that devestating, and so I wouldn't be surprised if he did manage to put Pea down for the 12 count, even though I lean more in the direction of Pea making it out of the fight on his feet.

One thing I think we can all agree on -- it would be a very interesting fight.

 

The first poster to come slightly off the rails away from the actual topic being discussed "Hearns v Whitaker at 147lbs" and attack someone for being biased, stating that arguments are not extracted fairly from their name, and even asking jokingly saying "Could you really be.... Sweet Pea himself?", was Stonehands.

If you look at the very post in question, then analyse the content of Pea's post above which Stonehands quoted, you'll see it contained nothing but constructed reasons why he feels Whitaker would last the distance against Hearns.

Stonehands surely was asking for a counter-punch with such a post. However, he hasn't exactly becoming too personal and outright attacking Pea.

Nobodys perfect. Pea and Stonehands certainly get tarnished with that brush.

JT put his case forward praising Stonehands for "great lengths to formulate his own opinions and views". Agreed. But everyone has different opinions on other posters views.

I happened to find Stonehands rather "touchy" when I disagreed with him a month or two back, to which I got back in return "watch to whom you provoke". Strong words. I then replied "I wasn't provoking you, just disagreeing with you".

Stonehands, no problems on that. I think you just took me the wrong way. As you later said some unknowledgeable posters were getting rather personal with you on the odd ocassion, hence the reason you were a tad suspicious.

 

The reason tommy couldnt engage fully with benitez was because he broke his right hand in the eight,thats a fact you have omitted and which rules out the knockout for hearns...You also omit the fact that benitez had the artillery to get hearns attention (as attested to by his one punch knockout of maurice hope.) ,el radar also had one of the best defenses ever...
You also fail to take into account that benitez was a solid 147 (the hearns fight was at 154.) and was much taller and bigger than pea...
Vasquez does not even deserve a mention in the same breath as hearns,its easy for pea to avoid the offense of a guy who is not as fast as him,now lets see how hearns speed (not to mention power.) matches against that of vasquez or even jc chavez? Those guys were like molasses compared to hearns...Ray leonard couldnt engage properly with hearns early on because hearns would beat him to the punch with his speed,you think whitaker can beat tommy to the punch then dance out of range or slip his shots while being a lightweight with a big height and reach disadvantage?
And please,whitaker landing head shots would bother tommy considering the shots he took off hagler in the first two rounds without going down? Show me any major fight where whitakers power was the factor in him winning? Maybe once in his career and it wasnt against a big welter like hearns...
I dont understand why you dont appreciate the styles in this fight,you realise that tommy in his early days almost always started very fast and worked to set up that right hand,what makes you think he would just box a former lightweight midget,who is known as a pure boxer? Early on Did he box ray leonard,duran,hagler,roldan,schuler,hutchings,cuevas or dozens of others when his hands were healthy and he was not well above his natural weight? Did he not let go of his hands against nearly all of his opponents from 147 to 154? (and even most times at 160.)
Do you realise how big,powerful and fast a welter hearns was,and how small,weak punching and slower whitaker is at 147,prime or not? Tell me,was whitaker at his fastest and best at 135 or 147?
Do you not realise that of all the fighters duran faced only ONE knocked him out,and this was never done before or repeated or even closely duplicated even as duran got slower and fatter and regardless of the power or quality of the opponent..Dont you think that shows duran has an excellent defense and chin and that hearns is the one guy in history with the right mix of SPEED AND POWER to do that to duran...Now apply that anology to sweet pea and its goodnight pea.........

 

Hearns possessed superb upperbody movement. Slipping and using his jab was what made him a great long range boxer. Whitaker changed the height and crouched when slipping incoming artillery.

Both were strong when it came to using upperbody and head movement. Just suttle differences in how they used those defensive moves, as one stood at 6' 1" and the other 5' 6".

Whitaker a bit more adjustable from the waist when spinning out of range.