Pernell Whitaker... Boxing Genius ?

Whitaker usually gets his credit. Most people say he's an ATG. In 2002, The Ring ranked him as the 10th greatest fighter from 1922-on. The Ring also had him 3rd all-time at lightweight behind Roberto Duran and Benny Leonard, and said they'd never bet against him at 135.

 

Lack of power isn't something you can knock Whitaker on. It's nothing about being an expert. Punching power is something a fighter possesses or doesn't. Nobody on here is going to tell me they know everything about punching power, not even someone such as 'stonehands89' Yes, people who are knowledgeable may cover areas sensibly and constructively, but it's something that cannot be fully explained with a definite awnser.

Technique, balance, speed, leverage, and strength. Just some of the areas that can be tweaked slightly to get the maximum power for a fighter.

Some fighters who are very orthodox (textbook) don't have much power at all. Others who are unorthodox have lethal power. And vice versa. Hamed was the type of fighter who could hurt an opponent from any angle it seemed. He was all over the place under Brendan Ingle, yet had a chilling punch. Louis was the total opposite, yet still had the type of power that could knock an opponent into the canvas.

IMO I tend to praise and admire fighters who have no power or can punch with moderate effectiveness. Because when a puncher lands the fight is over. A fighter with feather fists is unlikely to knockout his opponent, depending on the chin of the other fighter, so usually other areas are required for them to win. Ring generalship, speed, boxing ability, etc.


Just take away a fighters power and see what he was left, thats what you call a special one.


Whitaker never had much power. He could hardly become an expert with something he had little of in the first place.

 

http://www.eastsideboxing.com/forum/showthread.php?t=73166

Loads of Whitaker opinions in there.

Pea gets his due from any self-respecting boxing fan as one of the great pure boxers.If he seems to get put down more it's only because he's one of the most high profile and greatest.

Most fans have seen a decent number of his fights, so obviously there will an element of detractors and trolls.Most likely bitter mexicans.

At least he gets talked about.There are a lot of more obscure, but still really good pure boxers that it seems like only a small handful of fans on the classic forum are interested in at all.

 

I love talking about the lower weights, in fact you'll see most of my Classic Threads are regarding them. Make threads on them if you wish to hear opinions.

 

Whitaker was special. The same way SRR and SRL did, he brought the level of boxing artistry to new levels.

 

Having power is a facet of the game and Whitaker was deficient in it. He was GREAT in other areas, but it was something he lacked and made him less than complete.

If you can't knock him for not having power, you can't knock Hearns for having a less than stellar chin, Carlos Monzon for having less than stellar handspeed, Roy Jones Junior for having less than stellar heart.

 

I understand. But it wasn't something that he was born with. He made up for his lack of power with stronger attributes like defense, speed, and athleticism.

Not having power never was a problem to him, it was hardly something which he needed. Although it would have been handy, as it was when he KO'd Hurtado when behind on points. Hearns' punch resistance on otherhand was something which was his downfall on a few occassions. You can say well "Hearns punch resistance and durability let him down" in a particular fight. But can you say "Whitaker's lack of power was to blame for that defeat" Maybe so. Lack of power is a more feasible and accpetable excuse for a defeat than a bad chin.

 

If he had more power you would have had him beating DLH, and I would have had him beating Duran.

Alas.

He probably could have turned the Trinidad fight with more power as well. He hurt Tito several times to the body and if he hit harder that fight could have been a different story.

I think when it comes to the top echelon of all time, Whitaker's lack of power would hurt him. I see fighters like Duran and Armstrong beating him, where they wouldn't if Pea had more pop.

 

Whitaker's power is a bit underacted. People act as though he is the lightest hitting person in the history of boxing.

Look at how many times Meldrick Taylor hit Chavez. Chavez never once looked like he was quiting.

Whitaker tamed Chavez. He frustrated him with defense, sure; but he also backed him up and had him in trouble as well.

Whitaker was in no way a power puncher, but he hit hard enough to gain other fighter's respect while in the ring with him. Whitaker did not seem to care anything about finishing off a fighter. I really think he could have taken McGirt out in their rematch, but he elected not to turn up the heat.

Ask Hurtado if Whitaker hit hard enough to do any damage.

 

In my top 15 p4p

 

I agree with you that generally Pea's power is underrated. And I do think (together with his other facets) that it would be enough to thwart just about every fighter - just not Armstrong or Duran.

 

You are right and you probably were surprised someone like myself said "Lack of power isn't something you can knock Whitaker on" I guess that was the only part where I went wrong. In no way are you correcting me, as it doesn't need a rocket scientist to work out that Whitaker never had power and if he did it would have enhanced his game. I guess I got a tad excited and should have worded my reply to McGrain differently. What I meant to say was that it was something Whitaker himself couldn't improve on to a certain degree, thus not knocking him in that regard. In no way could he have become a lethal puncher.

 

Yes The Pea is a boxing genius. Let's now go on to another question....was George Foreman a big puncher? Then, was Ali a fast for a heavyweight?