Just something i'd like to say about Pernell Whitaker....

I'm not being biased in favour of Whitaker but I think he's great to watch. I would rather watch a Whitaker DVD with a handful of fights on it than a Tyson one. Boxers and boxer/punchers are my taste.

Whitaker had limited power so why are people expecting more offense? They can't complain about workrate with his hands as he was a busy fighter. He was a boxer with an excellent jab and a varied offense. Down the stretch against Chavez his offense was clean and effective and also against McGirt in their rematch. Ramirez II, say no more.

 

I thought all 3 were better but I liked Whitaker, 1 of the best ever & he makes my top 10 all time & only Pep was better defensively IMO.

 

Wait a second, you have film of saddler-pep I? NO WAY!! ur famous my friend! you have the only copy of a rare film that supposedly next existed!


Surely SS, you could not be talking about the 3rd and 4th fights which are actually on film, because in those fights Saddler gets outboxed clearly and cleanly and is FAR behind on the cards in both fights. but I guess getting outboxed and being far behind on all 3 cards in 2 fights is your defintition of "kicking ass" LOL LMAO


ps I would rather watch the real scientists of boxing than a showboat clown at a track meet.

 

great points

 

It seems to me like you have no idea about the 1940s era.....Willie Pep like lots of fighters has there fair share of clubfighters, but mixed in with those clubfighters was pep fighting at least one rated contender either in feather/lightweight division every month!! Willie pep beat ALL(not many.......ALL OF THEM) of the contenders of his era for ONE WHOLE DECADE. no one ever cleaned out an entire division like willie pep did beating rated contenders left and right(some very good ones) clearly and cleanly.


Pernell whitaker never even fought the two best lightweights of the 1980s camacho and rosario!!

 

His workrate was very high for a pure boxer, he set records for punches thrown and landed in fact, often throwing in excess of 100 per round and 1,000 per fight.

Why do people come up with this excuse? It's simply not true.

 

whitaker beat very weak opposition for a ATG.

 

Camacho had already moved up to 140 by the time Pea was in his prime, and was basically a second-rate fighter losing to the likes of Haugen by the end of Pea's 135 reign. Rosario was supposed to fight Pea, but had to get through Nazario first. We saw what happened there, and we saw what happened when Nazario faced Pea.

Pep on film is not as good as Whitaker. There's less footage of Pep, especially in his prime, so that's understandable. But what is readily available for us on film of him is not more impressive than what there is of Whitaker.

 

Pep beat very weak opposition for someone with 240 fights.

 

I have no idea about the 40's era? huh. I know a lot about the 40's my friend. Agnott, Wright, Saddler. Those among others were Pep's best wins. I'm not denying that Pep fought the best contenders throughout his time at the top. But the vast majority of his opponents were club fighters who made his record look good and kept him warm.

Regarding H2H. I'd almost bet my life on Whitaker handling Saddler easier than Pep did. I recall Pep looking like the elephant man after he was stopped by Saddler. And he came off 3-1 in their series of fights.

Whitaker is Pep's daddy.

You ever seen Whitaker-Ramirez II? I doubt Pep ever dominated a journeyman any better.

 

Before he quit of course.

 

but thats just the point. Pep was a warrior, he had 240 fights(compared to whitakers 40 something joke of a schedule), beat countless more top contenders than whitaker did, and pep beat MULTIPLE hall of fame great fighters, while whitaker did not. honestly, you whitaker fans never cease to amaze me. Whenever you attempt to bring down a ATG top 10 p4p fighter of all time legacy locked great like willie pep, it means your grasping for straws and your not doing a very good job at it...because tearing down willie pep only makes u look foolish and doesnt make sweet pea the track runner look any better.

 

ok then going by your defintion......chris bryd kicked vitalis ass???

 

Everyone had more fights back then, it was just the way the sport as handled. Percentage wise Pea fought a lot more good opponents in his amount of fights than did Pep. Pep's resume is overall more stacked because he fought a lot more, but he didn't beat much higher quality of fighters than Whitaker, and the best fighter he ever faced beat him thrice and forced him to quit, while Whitaker schooled the P4P #1 and best he ever faced(someone whose historical rating is on par with Saddler BTW).

In terms of in-ring ability based on what we have on film, Whitaker looks better, regardless of career accomplishments. That is why this debate started. You were the first one to try and turn it sour, so don't pin that bull**** on us.

 

You are critisizing Whitaker's style with such a comment. Surely you must think the same about Pep then?

Willie Pep "He who hits and runs away lives to fight another day. Thats what I done throughout my career and I got away with it"

Pep and Whitaker were not fighters who exclusively peppered their opponents with long range punches, kept things at arms length, and constanly backed away from their opponents. They were both brilliant on the spot within range, cirlcling, using angles, and using complex defensive moves. Don't tell me Pep was some sort of offensive monster compared to Whitaker as he clearly wasn't.

Part of the reason many people pick Duran over Whitaker at lightweight is the polar opposite of how you see him. They actually reckon he fights within range too much and would always be there for Duran to feast upon. Not the case of course as he used sufficient movement in a lot of fights. Nelson and Ramirez I come to mind. Whitaker and Pep were both movers IMO, although in the pocket and mid-range they could make opponents hit fresh air.