Pernell Whitaker: how good was he really?

I have Pea as #2 LW of all time behind Duran. In terms of P4P for me he's above everyone you mentioned except Leonard. Yes he would have beaten Mayweather.

Best fights - all of those mentioned above.

Only thing for me that knocks him down the P4P listings is the relatively short fight record compared to others in my top 15.

Truly an all time great!

 

top 15-20 p4p of all times, but not as high as ring magazine has him.

 

Thanks very much.

 

agree and disagree. a top-20 p4p'er? yes. certainly a good argument to be made.

beat mayweather? definitely.

chavez fight? i had whitaker winning by a point, so no travesty in my mind. whitaker often did not press- in any manner- for stretches during rounds. i think the ballyhoo and protests were far overboard in this fight.

de la hoya beat him going away, not easily, but clearly in my book. only whitaker apologists bring that argument up.

he got a couple of nods later in his career (Rivera anybody?) almost as make-up calls on previous close fights and out and out robberies (Ramirez).

i'm being critical but fair. all in all, a great fighter who had every benefit of prime US amateur training, fast-track fight making with big budget promotion.

 

In terms of all-time greatness, i'd tend to agree.

Strictly for defensive skills and general ability to make fighters miss, i do think Hilario Zapata was on a similar level to him, even though Zapata had other flaws(much weaker chin, lesser workrate etc.)that made him a less accomplished fighter overall.

I've often wondered if Whitaker was influenced by him somewhat, as his low crouching defensive moves are something that only those two share among all the top defensive fighters.zapata was very obscure in the States, so more likely a case of great minds thinking alike.

 

Maybe in the general board.

 

In every poll ever done on this site, and sometimes tallying over 100 voters, more people than not have had him winning the DLH fight. More people than not at ringside thought he won that fight. If it is only Whitaker apologists bringing the DLH fight into question, there must be HEAPS of Whitaker apologists out there.

 

I'll probably watch his fights with Bassa later today, how did you see them fights going?

 

Exactly what I said earlier. When you look at Pep's record and the amount of average and poor fighters he fought over 200 fights then Whitaker and some other modern greats probably get a raw deal.

I've said it and I'll say it again. The masterclass Whitaker put on against Ramirez in their rematch, you'd be hard pushed to find Pep putting on such a display against a journeymen never mind a highly regarded world class operator.

 

One of the best if not the best of all time. I don't see anyone besides Benny Leonard coming to beating Whitaker at lightweight. To say he was a defenseive master would be an understatement. He also had a very good offensive work rate, he had decent power at lightweight bit not as much at the higher weights. I would favor the Sugar Ray's over him at welterweight but Whitaker has the skills to beat either one.

 

Sweet Pea was good enough and past his prime years to beat DelaHoya, only to get robbed by the judges.

 

Whitaker made the fight into a boxing match and, quite comfortably, befuddled Chavez. It was a clear victory.

Now with De La Hoya, Whitaker did not dictate things like he used to, only landing a few here and there, but he rendered Oscar's attack nearly void. The 'Golden boy' won the fight on his aggressiveness and his promotion juggernaut; Whitaker landed better shots and Oscar tried his best to smother that.

Whoever you gave it to, it's a thumbs up to Whitaker.

The Rivera fights were closer than other earned victories that did not go in Whitakers favour, fights which took place above his best weight and years.

Manny Pacquiao very recently got away with the 'W' over Marquez in the rematch - was that just?

There are many close fights that could swing the other way, but it's the ones that really men something that we should focus on - you can't really hold anything against Whitaker - he had to pull out the stops and climb the weights to get the bigger fights.

If you also agree that he merits such a high place in your all time rankings then your grudges can't be too bad?

 

You mean a washed up ramirez?? while whitaker put on some impressive performances, nothing can match a past his prime willie pep's masterclass boxing display he did in the sandy saddler rematch winning 10-11 out of 15 rounds against one of the greatest fighters who ever lived. he outboxed outsmarted outworked outmanuevered saddler at all times and angles. whitaker can't compare to that.

 

Good enough to make almost everybody agreed on his career and his skills.
Very well known as the greatest defensive fighter ever along with Willy Pep.
I have him number 13 of all time and number 5 lightweight of all time.
I don't think we will ever see another fighter of his caliber.

 

Chavez Whitaker was a pretty boring, unfulfilling fight. Whitaker won his rounds more emphatically, but not 10-8 emphatic, and gave away much time adjusting his position in the ring. Chavez plodded along, poked and prodded to little avail. I had it 7-5 Whitaker. Again, it's the nature of the 10 point must system. I cound not really give Whitaker a 10-8 round though several of his rounds were far better than Chavez' best round.

I must not have been included in that DLH poll. I agreed with the judges on that fight. I know that can be sacrilege.

Personally, I'm not a huge fan of some aspects of Whitaker's style. He had sublime moments then muddled them with showboating, pants pulling and general ******* behavior. Still, his best moments were as good as any defensive fighter who ever entered the ring.