Pernell Whitaker: how good was he really?

It's commendable that you openly show your dislike for how he carried himself but recognize the importance of seperating that from his accomplishments, which not many fans do.

Some close fights here and there, but he was a superbly tuned defensive fighter in the ring, at his best and beyond, which is the big point here.

 

How did you have it 7-5, but with Whitaker only winning it by only a point?

 

Well Whitaker did beat julio Cesar Chavez, who was like a 100-0 ATG, a legacy sealer.

 

One thing that doesn't get talked about regards to Whitaker-Chavez. During the 6th round Whitaker hit Chavez way low and a time out was called out. The low blow from Whitaker was careless and it's arguable if it was intentional or not. Chavez took a minute or two to resume. Cortez never instructed the three judges to take a point off Whitaker for the foul. However, judge Mickey Vann decided to take a point off Whitaker under his own descretion. This was wrong.

If you look at most referees take on low blows throughout a contest. They will issue a warning for the 1st and 2nd, then points off after that. I'm pretty sure that Whitaker was asked to keep them up as the fight was in motion before the blow in question happened. Cortez IMO was right not to take a point off Whitaker. Vann thought otherwise.

Here is a description of Vann's book.


Involved in more than 350 championship fights - over 100 of them world title fights - Mickey Vann is one of the world's top boxing referees. He is also one of the most controversial. Appointed as Britain's youngest star-grade referee, he found himself in front of the disciplinary committee following his first fight. The biggest night of his career - the "Battle of Britain" world heavyweight clash between Frank Bruno and Lennox Lewis in Cardiff - saw him back on the mat for a four-letter outburst heard by the world, and he was accused of taking #25,000 from Don King to fix a fight. "Give Me A Ring" covers Vann's professional refereeing career in all its glory and rewinds to his early life. The son of knife thrower and showman Hal Denver and the grandson of "The Silver King", who included the Elephant Man in his freakshows, Vann's formative years were spent between a Dickensian foster home and on the road with the circus.

 

I think the low blow was definitely intentional. Whitaker had no other intention than to whack Chavez in the nuts. The thing is, the fight was marred with fouling tactics the whole way through. Chavez was hitting Whitaker low many times throughout the fight and hitting on the break and Whitaker was doing some holding, hitting, spinning, hitting on the break and hitting on or just after the bell. Right before the low blow in the sixth, Chavez hits Whitaker on the hip and you can tell Whitaker resolved to hit him low and proper to give him some of his own medicine. The fight became uncompetitive from that point on.

Vann did take a point from Whitaker, even if Cortez didn't instruct him to, and incidentally, so do a lot of Chavez fans who score the 6th round for Chavez.

 

I also recall Chavez hitting Whitaker to the kidneys; more or less his back up close. Illegal.

Vann took a point from Whitaker when the rules state he should not have done. It's up the referee to deduct points for fouls. It's under the referees descrection only, not the judges. Thats why the referee takes the hand of the fighter being penalised and leads him to the three corners of the ring where each judge is seated and says "one point off"

Many judges at ringside will have their own personal opinion about low blows and if points should or shouldn't be taken away for fouls, but it's not their decision to deduct points as and when they see fit.

 

He was very good.

Let's take a moment to compare the resumes of Whitaker, the 1990's best welterweight against Oscar de la Hoya, the 1990's biggist draw at welterweight.

Pernell Whitaker won his title from Buddy McGirt in 1993. McGirt was considered by most to be in the top 4 pound for pound fighters in the world at the time. It was what many felt the closest decision in Pernell's professional career. McGirt also had a problem with his left shoulder that later required surgery.

Whitaker first defended against Julio Cesar Chavez in the fall of 1993. Whitaker drew with the then best p4p fighter in the world in a fight that most felt Whitaker won. The decision was considered such an injustice Whitaker became a near house hold name.

Whitaker then faced Mandatory challenger Santo Cardona, and won a one sided decision.

In October of 1994, Whitaker granted former champion Buddy McGirt a rematch. McGirt claimed his injured shoulder was the reason for his first loss, and it would be a different fight with 2 arms. It was. Whitaker looked as though he was close to stopping McGirt on the way a wider decision win.

Whitaker's next defense came against Gary Jacobs in August of 1995. This was another mandatory, and anothe wide win.

Whitaker's first gimmie defense came next, in November of 1995. He faced former 140 lb champ Jake Rodriguez in a double header co-featuring Felix Trinidad. Trinidad had broken away from Don King, and this was supposed to be a lead up to a unification bout. Whitaker and Trinidad were both successful that night, both winning by knock out. Trinidad went back to King, and the unification never happened.

Whitaker fought Wilfredo Rivera in April of 1996, and won a questionable decision. Whitaker granted Rivera an immediate rematch and won a competitive, but clear, decision.

Whitaker defended against undefeated Diobelys Hurtado and won on a come from behind ko.

Whitaker then faced Oscar de la Hoya, and lost a disputed decision. Oscar never granted Whitaker a rematch instead he:

Defended first against David Kamau. Kamau earned his shot by losing to J C Chavez a division below.

De la Hoya then fought Hector Camacho, who must have earned his shot by beating 63 year old Ray Leonard a division above.

De la Hoya then fought Wilfredo Rivera, who earned his shot by losing to Whitaker.

De la Hoya then faced Patrick Charpentier, his mandatory

De la Hoya then fought Julio Cesar Chavez. I guess he felt like someone desereved a rematch.

De la Hoya then faced his first real test since Whitaker. De la Hoya won a disputed decision against Quartey in, at that time, what was the most entertaining fight of Oscar's career. Oscar quote after the fight: "You think it was a good fight Larry? I didn't think it was a good fight." Quartey never got another shot at Oscar.

De la Hoya went after Oba Carr next.

De la Hoya then faced Felix Trinidad and was robbed of a decision in what was the biggest fight of his career.

De la Hoya went on to beat Derrell Coley, and then lost a great fight to Shane Mosley.

 

sorry, 7-4-1.

if i never have to watch that horrible fight again it will be too soon.


ok, is everybody happy?

 

It's amazing to think that Oscar went that route after fighting Pea. I mean, his career is littered with big fights, but for some reason he took a five fight holiday after fighting Whitaker. And this at a time when he was being proclaimed as the no.1 fighter in the sport.

 

I'm happy - so long as you acknowledge that that is a 3 point difference, not a 1 point difference. You sure you don't mean 6-5-1?

 

An excellent fighter that only during the last few years has really started to get the recognition he deserves.

During his prime he was always acknowledged as one of the sport's finest - usually in the top #2 P4P in the world, but most magazines would rather run a story on the likes of Chavez, Meldrick Taylor, Michael Carbajal or the heavyweights. I suppose his style was not exactly one to make the blood pump faster and he never became a household name, except to the more hardcore fans.

It's interesting to note that Boxing Illustrated was the only magazine that rated Whitaker as #1 P4P before he and Chavez met. Every other publication at the time ranked Chavez higher. BI then about a month before their fight finally placed Chavez at #1, presumably succumbing to the endless complaints from Chavez fans that Whitaker was rated higher.
As it turns out, BI were right all along.

I'll be honest and say that he was never one I'd go out of my way to watch, although from a purist point of view he was technically brilliant.

 

pretty much sums him up...good post:good

 

Best defense ever, hows that? As well as an overall great fighter, fought everyone, versatile, underrated puncher(to the body, especially)although he wasnt a hard puncher, PISTON jab, and when you put his high workrate with his defense it makes for the #1 head to head lightweight ever, and arguably overall #1 lightweight. Top 15 P4P.


I dont think a prime 135 Pea would be beaten by anyone, all time or whatever, he wouldnt lose.

Welterweight, not many outside of Tommy Hearns I'd pick to top him.. But I think Tommys on par boxing(arguably better) coupled with his height would be too much for Pea.

 

Leonard would have beaten him, also Robinson and Napoles. Thats just for starters.