I don't see how you can compare PBF to Pernell Whitaker.. VIDEO

who comapres these two...two totally different fighters...even the type of defense they use is night and day.

 

There defenses are both different but they are both defensive geniuses.

 

Whitaker was better defensively and offensively and he proved it against the best fighters of his era.

 

Both great, great defenses. Entirely different though, Floyd will resolve on lateral movement more, and blocking strength more, with the shoulder-roll especially and blocking the jab. Whitaker was just a joy to watch, supreme upper body movement & ability to read punches. Incredibly balance aswell, I find it amazing watching some of those how he didn't fall flat on the canvas.

 

Sorry, but Whitaker was not half the offensive fighter Floyd is. And I don't like Floyd. But Whitaker really couldn't punch.

 

Watch Pernell Whitaker v Harold Brazier. Because you clearly haven't seen it. Whitaker had everytime in his offensive skill-set, he was just too defensively minded sometimes, like against De La Hoya - when past his best though.

 

whitaker was more like RJJ...just supremely more athletic and fast....in their primes just scary

BUT athleticism fades as you get older...RJ, Ali, Whitaker....im more inclined to favor Floyd's defense for the long haul he parry's punches, blocks them reducing damage...yes avoiding is a lot better but like i said to fight as long as they did it was not the best way to go because they begin to get hit more often later in their careers.

 

Just cause you have more ko's doesnt mean you're a better offensive fighter.

Go watch some prime whitaker fights and then tell me what you think.

 

Whitaker was fantastic. Funny though, this reminds me of a couple whiny threads I read post May/Marquez where people said Floyd cheats by ducking too low.

Well, if that's the case, Whitaker should have been DQ'd in every fight!

Of course, that's ridiculous. But, for the record I agree with the people who say they had different defensive styles but both were incredibly effective. Arguing over it is like debating Robinson vs. Armstong. They are both amazing, does it really matter?

 

Whitaker may not have been a power puncher, but he had enough pop to at least get respect from top class fighters -- he wasn't featherfisted or anything. Offence is more than just power, anyway -- it's how effective you are in your attack, and Whitaker was definitely effective when considering his southpaw jab (one of the best jabs I've seen actually) sharp left-straight and surprisingly good body punching up close. He mostly fought off the back foot, but he could attack very well when up close, too -- a slickster that could actually get rough when needed. Also keep in mind his superb workrate -- he could suppress people with the sheer amount of punches he threw, and thus nab round after round on points. (Somewhat interestingly, Mayweather is almost the opposite in terms of workrate -- whenever he loses rounds it's mostly because he simply doesn't throw enough punches, as in the DLH fight.)

That video was great. I love some of Whitaker's sneaky moves, like spinning the other guy around, leaping into jabs while moving away (so much harder than it sounds) and moving his head to the side very slightly to avoid an incoming shot, and instantly countering with the left. Then you have that lovely sequence when he's in the corner, shelling up and rendering all the incoming punches useless, only to come back with a flurry and calmly walk out. Very stylish defence.

Mayweather is also brilliant, of course. He's not as flashy as Whitaker, but he's so damned fast and graceful with the shoulder-roll -- some of the moves he pulls off are just crazy.