Just watched Pernell Whitaker vs Julio Cesar Chavez

:deal

 

Pac is not your typical flat footed pressure fighter. I don't see the comparison

 

Neither is Chavez. :verysad

 

I don't see what the hell Pac has to do with Sweet Pea/Chavez

 

Neither is Chavez.:deal


Btw JCC is much more better at cutting off the ring then Pacquaio ever was.:deal

 

Philla is a good poster but when it comes to Pacquaio he's lost.

 

I see Cesar as a swarmer.

I see emmanuel as a boxer-PUNCHER whose had the speed advantage for nearly all his boxing career. He never had much need to develop and advance his ring cutting skills.

 

He was past his best by the time he fought Whitaker, yes, but still an excellent fighter. That's the one that really put him over the hill. He'd looked excellent in his previous showings. Not at his peak, but toward the back end of his prime.

You could argue Whitaker was past it as well, though. Past his peak, anyway, which took place circa '89 to '92 at Lightweight.

 

Chavez is more flat footed than Pac. And Pac is way more explosive than Chavez

 

The fact is that Whitaker did this in only a handful of rounds.
2 of the rounds right after Whitaker had purposely low blowed Chavez is where he took advantage.

In boxing however, you score each round seperate, so you cant give Whitaker points earlier or later for something dominant he did in a previous round.

In well over half the rounds, Whitaker plain ran too much for me, and did little in regards to "effective"punching.

When two fighters in a round land little as far effective clean, clear connects......9 times out of 10 the aggresive fighter is going to bank that round, and rightfully so imo.

......Whitaker went by the same blueprint in his fight with DLH and lost clear on the cards, the some will argue he beat DLH because overall in the fight he landed the few effective clear connects of the contest.
......remember again, the problem here is that you dont get points and bank a round for what you did earlier or then do later after you have a good round.

Effectiveness has to come round after round, and Whitaker just did'nt do that.:deal

 

I'm responding to someone's post in the thread. People seem to think Pac and Chavez have similar styles.

I know Chavez is not a flat footed fighter he is way too good for that but compared to PAc he is flat footed.

 

just watched the whole fight on youtube (for years, i've only watched highlights :nut ) and i scored it 119-109 for Whitaker... only a few rounds were close but i gave those to whitaker because he was just more effective with his punches.... chavez had aggression but it worked against him... anyone who claims that chavez had effective aggression REALLY needs to re-watch this fight... A LOT of chavez's punches were hitting AIR or Whitaker's hips, elbows. Chavez probably landed 5 CLEAN right crosses the whole fight... Whitaker controlled the pace with Ring Generalship, effective counter-punching, out muscled and out landed Chavez.... Chavez was tired from round 7 on... he just didn't have the steam in his punches and he leaned a lot into pernell... you can just see on his face that he was done....This is a WIN for Whitaker in my book. :good :yep

 

Imo, Chavez is 10X better boxistically than Pac is.
Chavez' defense and trap setting is well beyond the comprehensible skill level of Pacquiao who relies more ona speed and explosiveness, without the nuances to a gameplan that will be needed to handle a fighter of Mayweather's pedigree.


Imo, the few rounds Whitaker displayed brilliance in against Chavez........Mayweather will do round after round against Pacquiao.

The disparity in boxistical skill level between Mayweather and Pacquiao is so much greater than the disparity between Whitaker and Chavez.

 

Competitive simply means that each round itself wasn't a blowout. Rounds can be clearly won without having huge gaps between each fighters' performance. Any sane boxing fan knows it's a robbery.

 

of course it wasnt chavez's fault but it just showed how much better whitaker was that night and at that stage of their careers in general.