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

It wasn't close, and after the midway point, it wasn't competitive either.

 

Pick Lopez's best fights. Were they better pure boxing displays - by your definition - than Whitaker-Haugen, Whitaker-Diaz, Whitaker-Brazier?

I mean, since we're discussing Lopez, who hardly fought anything but F-to-B list fighters throughout his whole career, might as well measure Whitaker against some of his less notable opponents.

 

I try not to get into the 'pure boxing' debate. Because im not sure what itis you're asking. The word 'boxing' by definition means 'hitting without being hit', so when talking about pure boxing is it asking who is the best at purely being able to land blows whilst avoiding those in coming from the opposite direction? Or does it mean who is the best TECHNICAL boxer, as in textbook boxing in the form of say, Lopez?

Technically Lopez was spot on, but hitting without being hit Whitaker is of the finest.

Can someone please clear this up for me?

 

To clarify, here is Vlade's definition:

I don't mind Vlade's definition, I just think I have more lenience for a guy that uses movement.

For instance, in the Whitaker-Chavez fight, Vlade says he doesn't consider Whitaker's performance to be an example of pure boxing. Now bare in mind that Chavez actually threw as many punches at Whitaker as he did at Meldrick Taylor. How can that be so? If Whitaker was actually running and avoiding contests, whereas Meldrick stood his ground all night, how did Chavez still manage to throw the same amount of punches?

I have an answer. It's because Whitaker, despite moving, was in range ALL NIGHT LONG. He tempted Chavez to throw and throw again, and CHavez obliged, and caught receipts all night long.

 

I know, i discussed this point with him and agree with you on it.

So 'pure boxing', is more a debate on who is the better boxer in the definition of the word, ie 'hitting without being hit', rather than that of a technically sound pugilist? Just wanted to clear that up so i can get stuck in when i see threads on pure boxing!

 

As far as I'm concerned, you can be unconventional and still a great pure boxer. If anything, the term pure boxing is derived to delineate it from elements like strength, power, ability to take a punch and to a lesser extent, I suppose mettle etc.

Is it about hitting and not getting hit? That's a big element of it, but not everything that it's about. It's about skill - which itself is nebulous. It of course involves technique, caginess, punch co-ordination, awareness, defensive ability and a myriad of other things.

 

Oh yeah, i understand that boxing and great boxing can be done without simply hitting without being hit. Its just that when i see this term 'pure boxing', im not too sure on what it is thats being discussed, thats what im asking. Because the word 'pure' is there, im thinking to myself, does it mean solely on the aspect of hitting without being hit?

Its just so i know what the discussion is about.

 

Usually, fighters who dont get hit, are fighters that are constantly running......so technically, they're not delivering a textbook boxing performance when you're constantly on the backpedal.

.....although I would agree with Scientist, Whitaker was fantastic technically. He was certainly capable of putting up boxing clinics.....
.....just he did'nt do it, or even try doing it against his best competition.

Calzaghe-Lacy......Holyfield-Foreman......either of the JMM-Pac fights.....those are boxing clinics to me.......
Fighters who are in the pocket boxing, but not on the constant run.

True boxers to me are of the attitude, "come and bring it, because whatever you bring, I"m going to fistically disect it!

Thats the key to me, "Fistically!"

 

I'm glad you brought up the notion about Whitaker being in range vs Chavez.....

I dont see it as Whitaker being in range, because he was running backward, and doing so very fast.

I think it says something about Chavez' capabilities that he was able to get off a fair amount of shots on Whitaker, as fast back as Whitaker was traveling.
Most of those shots that Chavez got off were connecting.....whether it be Whitaker, arms, shoulder, elbows.....and many were glancing off Whitakers defense and landing in scoring areas.......seems you're not giving Chavez credit for those.
Chavez-Whitaker, was'nt at all like Whitaker's fight with Azumah Nelson.
Like Chavez, Nelson was in hot pursuit, but unlike Chavez, Nelson was constantly whiffing at Whitaker.....Nelson was completely missing Whitaker and whiffing air.

You said it Scientist, Chavez got off as many shots as he did against Taylor.....you give Whitaker credit for clearly tapping Chavez on the head with a punch that does'nt deter Chavez' foward progress what so ever.

You would think that a solid shot stops a fighters foward progress.
You dont even have to have power to stop a fighters foward progress.....all you have to do is stick your hand out and hold it stiff, and if your opponent runs into it, his foward progress suplies the power, and his foward progress is halted for at least a split second.

The rounds I'm giving Chavez in the Whitaker fight, Whitaker is running and running, and Chavez is in hot pursuit, punching to the body, and getting in alot of partial connects.
It seems to me that you're not giving Chavez any credit for these partial connects.
A shot by Chavez delivered with intent, that glances off Whitaker's elbow, but then lands on his body, is a partial connect in my mind, worth more than a jabbing tap on the top of Chavez' noggin, that would'nt have killed a fly if it had been caught inbetween.
.....Whitaker was'nt stiffening his arm out even, so that Chavez could run into the jab, he was just tapping his jab,not fully extending it, and quickly as can be bringing it back to defend.....he's too preocupied with the notion to defend, that he's not putting anything in his jabs.
I'm sorry, but glancing shots from Chavez who are landing count more than a tap on the head.
Nothing will ever convince me otherwise.

....and lets remember here Scientist, I am talking about the rounds I gave to Chavez, I'm not talking about rounds that Whitaker won on my card, because if I gave it to him, then he did enough and deserved to win those rounds.
So many times that I'm argueing my points, posters counter me with rounds that clearly Whitaker did some damage in......rounds where he did throw some stiff shots in, and that I gave him......

.....I'm saying that there were at least a few rounds that you gave Whitaker, that he'd did'nt land meaningful blows in.....you're giving him the round based on the tapping zero of a jab, and ignoring Chavez shots that are glacing off Whitaker's defense, but going and connecting at a scoring target anyways.

 

I did'nt say that jyuza.

I said earlier that I had Trinidad up in rounds 7-5.
Thats 115-113, not many 115-113 scorecards I would classify as clear victories.

Without the knockdown, I would have had Trinidad winning 115-113, but certainly would not go as far as to call it a clear victory.

I said it earlier, 7-5 either way is reasonable from how I saw it.
Certainly in my view neither fighter was impressive.

 

Fair enough. I was not impressed by them either.

 

I get you, i just think that Whitaker was not on the constant run.

I appreciate pocket masterclasses, but i appreciate movers aswell

 

How do you account for Whitaker hitting Chavez so many times whilst running backwards?

When was the last time someone landed more than 300 punches in a fight between p4p fighters again? Can you remember?

Shots on arms, elbows, backside don't count. I gave Chavez credit for the punches he landed in scoring areas. He did land some punches, no doubt. Just not near as many as Whitaker, that's all.

THe biggest discrepancy was in Whitaker's offence. In the Nelson fight he had a much higher workrate, threw about 1000 punches and landed 470 of them. But both Chavez and Nelson hit Whitaker roughly the same amount. Chavez a little more so. (Via punch stat, it was something like 190 for Nelson and 220 for Chavez). Chavez did land a lot more elbow, shoulder, butt shots though.

I think Whitaker stopped Chavez in his tracks quite a few times, but credit be given to Chavez's chin, he got hit by Whitaker power shots and kept coming. Heck Taylor hit Chavez near 500 times and it didn't stop Chavez coming. He was a tough, tough hombre.

I think you're underselling Whitaker's jab. No doubt he landed some flicking, innocuous jabs, but he landed a lot of good ones too.

Relative to what Chavez did, I think Whitaker did more in 8 or 9 rounds, it's that simple. But agree to disagree, as we do...

 

Well, he may not be the best but he´s the one who let me sit there in awe after watching one of his fights.

 

Oh come on, be objective. Whitaker wasn´t a runner, he stood in there in front of Chavez at times and just didn´t get hit.