Opinions.. Pea vs. Nelson

Your friends head is up his arse.

Whitaker produced a boxing clinic vs a great fighter.

 

Well pea rarely stood and fought in his prime. to me your friend just sounds bias.

 

It was an excellent performance and win.

the only potential negative i see in it for Whitaker is that he opted to give a lot of ground and fight on the backfoot.Nelson had been matched for strength, kept at centre-ring and generally looked less physically beastly against smaller fighters than Whitaker.

It's tough to say much about that as a criticism without seeing Nelson against other good fighters at lightweight though.Nonetheless i'd probably point to it as evidence to the contrary when Whitaker is said to also be one of the really great offensive fighters\equally good on the frontfoot firing off combos and bodyshots.

technically excellent of course and able to be dominant at that against even very good fighters but his power level ultimately hampers him.

He's not going to be fighting the Durans\Williams and Armstrong's by standing in front of them for lengthy periods ripping extended combos and bodyshots, or duking it out inside.Rather it would probably be about finding when best to deploy those aspects to compliment the crafty outside and mid-range pure boxing.And if he has to use a lot more movement than usual, as against Nelson, then so be it, rather than go to war and be outgunned.

 

Whitaker outboxed him doing what Whitaker did to everyone. Nelson wasn't hurt or affected by the blows in the least, and kept coming, throwing the harder blows, but when you can't land anything and the other guy is hitting you with light or medium blows throughout the bout, you lose a decision. That's what this was.

 

Tell your friend to watch another sport.

 

He didn't run at all.

He backs up, occasionally stands flatfooted and peppers Nelson with every punch in the book.

The whole notion of Pernell being a "runner" is wrong. He usually stood right in front of you and made you miss with slick upper body movement or played matador, slowly backing up while peppering you all the same. He wasn't a lightweight version of Cassius Clay

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wH0NNfM7myk[/ame]

 

It was one of his best performances. A clinic in how to box off the back foot. Jabbed Nelson silly.

 

It was ana excellent back foot performance. The only way to knock it in any way, shape or form is by talking about how Nelson wasn't great at the weight, and that's if you're going to adopt the technically speaking approach. There is nothing to discredit about the performance, it was tremendous.

 

3. Nelson wasn't a Lightweight

Good effort by Whitaker, but I rate several of his other wins higher.

 

Nelson said after the fight something along the lines of...."it doesn't matter anyway. It's just a game". Considering his wife had died around this time the comment is no surprise

 

I criticize the boxer who can't catch a guy.

Whitaker was simply stepping back and turning. If Nelson can't catch him, can't get the ring, can't take the angle, who the hell is at fault?

Boxing fans have it backwards. Its WAY harder to be the runner than the chaser. Cutting the ring ain't hard. Staying on your legs, round after round? Damn. I never, ever developed the stamina to approach fighting that way.

If you want to ***** about running, shut up and pin your damn prey.

I'm done.

 

Although I agree in the abstract, there is a real world problem with this. The runner's are practiced at running, and take few risks, and then when the attacker finally tracks them down, the runner illegally holds, and instead of taking off points, or even just allowing the attacker to work his hands free and then to finally punch while on the inside, the runner has this third guy in the ring to help him out and ruin the purity of the one on one fight. The referee prevents the attacker from working free and remaining on the inside, may even prevent the attacker from trying to rough the holder to get himself free from the illegal hold, and then the ref gets between them, forces the attacker to step back away, and allows the runner to step back and move around again. Inherently unfair practice by many referees.

But that has nothing to do with this fight. Whitaker totally outboxed Nelson, and it would not have mattered at what weight the fight was fought at.

 

Sure it matters. A bigger man exerts more pressure, is stronger in clinches, is able to cut off the ring easier, generally is taller and has more closing range. All this exerts more physical, and equally important, mental pressure on a fighter. Ali toyed with Bob Foster (for the most part). Would he have done this if he was also a Light Heavyweight? Highly unlikely (although I think all things being equal Ali still wins). What about Michael Nunn vs James Toney and Marlon Starling? Two highly skilled technicians. Toney roughly two weight classes bigger than Starling. That doesn't matter? Pea vs Nelson is a great Lightweight toying with a great Featherweight. Pound for pound I think Pea would beat him anyway, but everyone suggesting the weight difference isn't a factor is completely ignoring the history of the sport.
Duran vs Leonard is a rare exception. But then Duran is in most ATG top 8's.