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

Top sentence - Maybe the fact that whitaker fought at a higher weight has a little to do with this life risking idea.

2nd sentence - Your seriously gonna knock Pep for losing to 1 of the greatest 2 or 3 FWTs of all time in Saddler`s prime after the plane crash which was past (tho not by much) Pep`s own prime & he STILL avenged that in 1 of the purest boxing efforts of all time.

3rd line - Pep was white & whitaker was black + Pep was born 1st.

Last sentence - That fight truly defines the word masterclass but I wouldnt bet on Pep never having beaten a journeyman as easy.

:thumbsup

 

Whitaker was'nt a big puncher, but neither were fighters like Hagler, Chavez, Holyfield, Leonard, and currently JMM.....the list goes on.....

.....there are so many fighter that dont have a big punch, but still punch with leverage on their shots.

Whitaker was a fighter who teased you with what he could do on the offensive end.....he certainly did it vs Chavez for two round, when he layed a hurt on him and had him backpedalling.....the only problem with Whitaker is that he fails to sustain such effort, most likely because he knows that he's risking getting caught with a shot in return.

Whitaker laid out this hurt only sporadically during alot of his fights, then he backed off and clowned, laughing and playing, you cant hit me, but in the process not mounting anything effective on the offensive end.
A smile and a laugh does'nt gain you points on a scorecard.

When Whitaker was laughing and teasing, he may have been trying to tell us, I can do anything I want, I can hit you or I can tease you.....
Its too bad he chose the latter, because there are lot of things alot of fighters can do on paper, but if he does'nt show it and practice it in the ring, guess what? Most judges are not going to credit you for it.

On paper the New England Patriots should have destroyed the NewYork Giants in last years Superbowl......Most fans would have said, why even play the game, just hand the trophy to the Patriots.......

We know now, why they play the game. No matter how good you may think you are, you still have to execute and prove it in the match!

 

You're saying Whitaker wasn't a big puncher. Absolutley true. Not many fighters are chilling punchers. The fighters that you just mentioned are just below that level. Leonard was certainly a hitter at welterweight and he later proved against Lalonde he could hit. Hagler and Chavez both had respectable power. Duran was the only fighter who took Hagler the distance in all his successful middleweight title defenses, thus showing you that Hagler while not being a one punch knockout artist could certainly punch.

After reading this whole post it seems you're critisizing Whitaker's style more than anything else. You might argue his style wasn't based on power punches, but he wasn't a puncher anyway. Whitaker threw point scoring punches. The way you make it out to be is that his punches that lacked leverage, in your opinion, are not to be taken into consideration. Are they to be looked at as the same as missed punches?

Why would he want to sustain such effort when he knew he never had natural power? Standing with Chavez for too long simply isn't his style. I could easily critisize Chavez for not having things in his arsenal. His lateral movement and boxing ability was limited to say the least. That would be stupid for me to do so as I'd be looking for him to do things he couldn't do or couldn't do well. Whitaker was athletic and had the ability to box on the backfoot. It seems to be that you're looking for Whitaker to stand and flat-footed to gain the maximum power he could possibly get, but it simply aint his style.

Whitaker never layed out hurt, seen the consequences of his punches, then backed away clowning. I would critisize him for that if he did, as he'd be backing away from a wounded animal.. But he didn't do that. What is effective offense here? IMO a fighter who lands punches on the target areas of the head and body has an effective offense. Again the more regularly he lands, then all the better.

Aggressiveness impresses judges. That I will agree with. Thats why Chavez got a draw with Whitaker. Because he was coming forward. Trust me, it's the craziest aspect of scoring in professional boxing. Fighters are given credit for coming forward no matter if they are landing or not. We can argue all we want. Coming forward and looking to initiate exhanges impresses me, only if a fighter is landing punches. I'm a firm believer that styles of fighters should not be favoured by judges. What is so special about marching forward like a bull? It shows you want it and are looking to fight, but it's crucial that your impressive and effective with your work at the same time of course.


The bottom line is, it's all about landing punches. It's the main part of the sport.

 

I dont call pure boxing someone who predicates themelves to running around the ring, avoiding fistic exchanges......

.....to me, a pure boxer invites such confrontation and uses his motion to and away from his opponent to a varying degree, with the intention to have your opponent throw his hands, so you can do so on him.
Stalling such exchanges to have such rounds go by without proving your superiority in these exchanges, is not what I call pure boxing.

Leonard running circles around Hagler is not pure boxing.
DLH running circles around the ring vs Felix Trinidad is not pure boxing.
Whitaker running circles around JC Chavez is not pure boxing.

.....in each of these cases, the runners in such cases, ran for long periods in a round, without the intention to do anything that would qualify as "an effort to exhert, an effective aggressive exchange."
In many cases stalling and intending to minimize boxing related exchanges in a round.

My choice for a pure unadulterated master pure boxer, try Ricardo "Finito" Lopez!

Someone who can prove in a round over and over again, that if you let your hands go on him, you're going to pay exponentially.......
.....Thats a "pure" boxer my friend!

 

I watched most if not all of Pernell Whitaker's fights, he was regularly shown on free TV back in the 80's, and I followed his career path ever since......

.....and I'm not saying he ran all the time, but he did so vs the better opposition. He did so in his career defining fights.....Nelson, Chavez, and DLH!

.....and I agree, Whitaker was brilliant in the pocket, and against Chavez vs instance, he did just enough of it in some of the rounds that it earned him a draw on my card.

I'm not arguing that Whitaker was'nt capable of doing it, I'm pointing out that vs the better fighters, he limited his pocket stays and relied more on punching while having his feet backpedalling in constant motion.

To answer part of Robbi's post above, yes it is about landing punches.
....but in proffesional boxing, you credit the effectiveness of a blow as it lands.
When Whitaker is landing jabs while he simultaneously has his feet on the move backward as his jab is landing, I think its safe to say that most of those jabs are carrying nothing behind them.
Those jabs have to be credited accordingly. Thats why I have a high disdain for HBO's punchstats.....you dont credit a solid stiff jab that lands the same as a jab that taps an opponents head and that visibly does'nt deter an opponent from even thinking about stopping his foward progress.

I've constantly argued and pointed some of the flaws in Whitaker's offensive arsenal against JC Chavez......you guys have got to understand that I'm not saying that Whitaker did'nt do well, or was'nt effective vs Chavez.
.....my arguments have been that Whitaker was'nt effective to the degree that Whitaker diehards like Scientist and Robbi make it out to be.
Goodness, 10 rounds to 2, or 9-3 is imo looking at it blindly and biasly.
Thats my opinion, as I did'nt see Whitaker consistently having rounds where he put up an effective enough offense to win the rounds these guys are talking about.

So please dont take my criticism as bashing on Whitaker. I fully respect him as a fighter......
....but when you're debating people who are of the opinion that Whitaker won 9 and 10 rounds from Chavez and who are of the opinion that he was robbed vs DLH.....then anything I say to contradict those opinions sounds like I'm bashing on Whitaker.

 

Whitaker was one of the rare breed of fighters that, as I like to say, had a near "psychic" ring presence- it was as if he knew exactly what was going to happen fight in, fight out, before it actually did and almost always gave the impression of being at least one step ahead of his opposition. That kind of "sixth sense" in the ring is something you're either born with, or you're not- and Pernell had it. While I was never the biggest fan of him, I always appreciated what he brought to the table and respected his game- particularly that aspect of it.

And Divac, I understand exactly what you're trying to get across here

 

Exellent post teeto!:good

Though I dont agree with your 8-4 score, I can respect the fact that you viewed alot of the rounds as close, and not the dominance that this fight has been stereotyped to be.

.....as for even rounds. I think there's a place for them in a fight, though I generally try to limit them to one and sometimes two in a fight, where I just cant think of it as fair to reward it to one fighter or the other.
On my scorecards, I find that when I do give an even round, its generally in a first round feelout round that did'nt have anything of significance taking place.
I believe that in such instances, its unfair to have a feelout round like that determining the fight outcome at the end, and so it not unusual for me to score such rounds even.

.....but I here you, generally I find things happening in a round that seperates one fighter over the other in a close contested round.


If I'm not mistaken, our good friend sweet_scientist, is a believer in even rounds!
Maybe Scientist can share his thoughts on scoring even rounds, he's a believer in them, but by God could'nt find a single round in Chavez-Whitaker to score even.

 

Exellent!:good

Whitaker was indeed a fighter that had a sense about reading what his opponent was about to try!
A fighter who does his homework, is not to be caught by suprise!:yep

 

He schooled the # 1 p4p at WELTERWEIGHT, which was 1-2 weight classes above chavez best, not to mention chavez was not in his prime anymore.


Pep on the otherhand post plane crash schooled a top 3 featherweight of all time at the peak of his powers at 126lb, his best weight class. I think this victory trumps whitaker's over chavez, because he beat a genuine top 3 great of all time in that particular weight class, while chavez rates nowhere near a top 10 welterweight of all time. Had pea beat chavez at 135-140lb, it would be different.


I also think historically, sandy saddler was defintley better than chavez.

 

I'd like to add a fighter into the equasion, Manuel Medina. Now he's a fighter I'd term under your criteria, Divac, regarding non effective punches. And if you come to the conclusion that his type of shots were remotley as clean and effective as Whitaker's or even better, then I'm afraid I would not respect your opinion in any shape or form whatsoever.

I watched Medina come over here to Scotland and upset Scott Harrison for the WBO featherweight title in 2003. And I had him winning the fight easily. Harrison was confused by Medina's movement, was out-worked, and also outlanded. The rounds were easy to score IMO. Harrison wasn't getting off the mark and when he did he usually missed.

I'd like to add that while Medina won the fight his punches were as non-effective as you can possibly get. When I mean non-effective, I don't mean as they never hurt Harrison, as if they did hurt him they would look better. Leverage and what he put into them wasn't impressive. No zip or snap. The end results of a fighters shots on his opponent counts that little bit more. That goes without saying. Medina threw a lot and was busy, but they were punches thrown to touch Harrison. Almost pushing type punches would be the best way to describe them. Nothing behind them at all.

Whitaker on the otherhand for one cannot be accussed of these type of non-quality shots. I'll start with one punch, his jab. Now, his jab was extremely accurate, fast, and while it wasn't as powerful as other great jabbers, Hearns, Holmes, etc. It was equally as effective although not as hurtful.

Whitaker's body work was also underrated. When throwing these shots he was usually up close and flat-footed. Again, while he wasn't a naturally powerful fighter, he did put as much into these shots as other fighters who maybe done more damage downstairs. But those other fighters had the power to make their work better on our eyes. Mines, yours, and the judges, when an opponent showed the effects of the shots.

I'm sure you can mind when Whitaker stood in front of Chavez and loaded up with left hand bombs out of his southpaw stance. Yes, they never hurt Chavez but they were effective blows nonetheless. I'm not saying Whitaker was doing this during every round. But if you are looking for him to do of this to impress you then your asking him to be something he isn't. You need to realise that when boxers are mobile and shifting around the ring not much power comes with that when shots are triggered off. IMO Whitaker's punches had snap with the bit zip behind them which comes with speed. Effective punches although not hurtful.

Even when Whitaker stood and traded, eg; against McGirt in their rematch, his power was always limited.

 

All three are greater by my standards too and Whitaker isn't even in my top ten all time. Pep might have been better defensively, but he sure as hell ain't from the (post prime) footage I've seen.

 

Saddler always started off fights slow. Being behind on the cards is not indicative of all that much. You know as well as I do that Saddler always became more intense as the fight went on. If Pep didn't quit (twice), both fights would have changed complexion.

Saddler knocked Pep down in the third fight and pummeled him for a protion of the fight anyway, and had he got him in that state in the later rounds, well, Pep would have quit.

Even the fight Pep won he had to go through hell to win. You like to claim that Pep won easy but listen to what Pep himself says about it, he doesn't say he gave Saddler a boxing lesson, he simply says he won the fight. He knows it was no walk in the park and what a tough ******* Saddler was.

As for wanting to watch the real scientists as opposed to a clown on a track meet, that's a ****en laugh. Pep is the greatest track star of all time. You never saw Whitaker running like Pep. Wanna know why? He could actually hang with ANYONE on the inside, unlike Pep, who had to run to survive. :good