I think this guys defense was the best ever

:good yea, loche was very good, but if he had not lost to the great cervantes, i'd definitely put him up there with sweet pea, but the pea was still on a higher level. it's different to look great vs. good competition, and another to do the exact same thing vs. other atg's like whitaker did with nelson and chavez. that's why pernell is better. that is why it's not wise to jump to conclusions, but yes, loche was very, very good. few like willie pep or roy jones, jr in their primes can match whitaker's defense because they did it vs. other atg's

 

Over the course of their respective careers, Floyd's defense is better than Pea's.

 

I love watching locche's cameradere.

Winky
Bernard
sweetpea
floyd
pep
toney

 

:mj:good best defensive fighter ever.

 

wow:good this guys is excellent!!

 

Locche is my numero uno in this department

 

I disagree. Whitaker was afraid to muster up and open up enough offensively against the best, to leave no doubt he had won a round. It cost him three times against Ramirez, and more so against Chavez and DLH.

In proffesional boxing you just cant exhibit and say, "look at my defense,"and expect proffesional judges to award you rounds.

Its hard enough to expect judges to score honestly and unbiasly, but when what you mostly do is say, "look at my defense"........you're opening the door for judges to disregard you even in those seldom rounds rounds where you may open up some offensively.

Whitaker was capable of sustaining a sound offensive, but he just did'nt do it against his better opposition.




Stricly defensive, as a "you cant hit me" type of routine, certainly Whitaker is the best I've ever seen in my 30 years as a boxing fan.

 

What Whittaker have you been watching? Just the Nelson fight?

 

Defensively speaking, Whitaker had by far better "make you miss moves".......

.....but overall, both offensively and defensively, Mayweather by far has a better gauge of just how much of each has to be combined to bank rounds.

 

Pernell Whittaker was a complete technician in the stylistic sense more so than FLoyd Mayweather. I'm not saying it makes him more effective, as i don't quite know, but your styles analysis is either misinformed or wrong.

 

I named the fights in my post. Whitaker lost all three of those fights, though the first Ramirez fight I felt he won.

Against the best, Whitaker did'nt dare cross the line offensively that needed to be crossed.

 

He bested Chavez at every facet of the game, it's undeniable and it's pretty embarrassing to blame that result on anything to do with Pernell Whittaker's performance.

On the other performances, well i'm of the opinion that there are many ways to win boxing matches, there is no prerequisite offensive barrier to cross to be considered to win a bout against the 'best'. I can score a fight for a defensive minded, offensive minded, or balanced boxer, every fight is subjective.

 

You've spent too much time in the Classic section soaking up crap from the so called want to be called "purist."


Not that everything posted in the Classic is crap.
The Classic forum is great, and most of them know there boxing.......but too many of them are to nostaligic and overcredit the type of things that Whitaker for instance did........"Hit and not be hit." Thats fine and dandy when the fighter making the other miss is also being
"effective offensively."
......and I'll go beyond that, at least "trying to be effective offensively", which I felt in many instances Pernell Whitaker in his mental zone of exhibiting great defense, neglected even attempting to be effective offensively.......again, I'm talking about his fights with Chavez and DLH.....the better fighters he faced.