Pernell Whittaker - How do you beat him.

So, now you attack Sweet Scientist? If you knew just how juvenile and low class you appear with these silly diatribes I'd hope that you would knock it off.

Take my word for it: knock it off. Establish a reputation by posting well-reasoned arguments that refrain from personal attacks. Over time, you'll earn the right to get fiery now and then. As it is now, you're only polluting this forum.

 

****. I've gone by this thread more than a few times in the past week, and this is honestly the first time I've noticed ANY of BoppaZoo's posts.

 

To answer your question Boppa, I never enter the tipping comps because what you say is true, I know **** about half of the fighters I'd be betting on. Sorry, but I'm just not going to invest the time necessary to analyze the skills of modern day second and third raters, which is what 90% of the matchups on those competitions involve. I research what I want to research, and that is what interests me. If you ever see me post on a topic you think I'm less than adequately learned in, please call me out. Otherwise, get a life and **** off.:good

 

Just rewatched Whitaker-Chávez, which I personally scored 8-4 for Pea.

BUT...

a) I had Chávez ahead after 6. His pressure and accurate powershots were successfully forcing Whitaker to a feisty, but insufficient, back-foot game.

b) Chávez mixed it up well: sneaky single lefts and rights along with body blows.

c) A big element in Pea's eventually tide-turning strategy, his vaunted "generalship", included good, old-fashioned spoiling tactics, i.e., pushing the opponent around the ring, spinning same around, and a couple of well-placed shots to the groin area. Chávez was too set in his heretofore extremely successful patient modus operandi to pay back in kind. A fiery Duran would be another story here, and I would say Pea would not have the benefit of these tactics against him.

d) Chávez was just about out of gas by the end of the 9th. But, mind you, this was the 88th fight for a 31-year-old break-in super featherweight fighting at 142 for the welterweight title. Anyone who witnessed prime Chávez cannot reasonably state the second half of the Alamo fight was anything close to vintage, yet, by credible accounts, el Gran Campeón still took the first half. 12-round punishment was a hallmark of Chávez's, and I can see him sealing a win on points at his peak.

e) Whitaker was probably not at his peak, either, but, in a word, was simply closer to it, in terms of weight, age and ring wear. He was losing to a mildly shopworn Chávez. Why? On account of power pressure, varied attack to body and head, quickness and accuracy.

f) Whitaker won fair and square, because, though using much spoiling, he won within the rules. Did he put on a "ghetto-whuppin'"? Hardly, IMO. Rounds 9 and 12 were close, I gave them to Pea, but I could see some judge rewarding aggression a bit more, scoring them for Chávez, and then there you have your draw. Time and weight were Chávez's most formidable obstacles that night.

g) Roberto Durán could, in his more savage style, deploy the same above anti-Pea elements and more handily win, IMO. At a certain point, you can only give up so much in power to your opponent, and I believe Durán could romp over Whitaker. The wild card here would be: could Durán keep his head? I believe a ready Roberto would.

h) You have to put Pea in the pressure cooker to beat him, so here I also like the nonstop punching Henry Armstrong.

i) Benny Leonard was Whitaker's peer, defensively, but having more pop to his punches, could IMO edge out a win, as well.

j) Greats such as Argüello and Ortiz are perhaps a tad too slow and textbook to get the job done.

k) Very few men at this weight could enjoy comfortable odds over Whitaker at this weight.

l) Pea is great.

 

Chavez started much, much quicker in this fight than he did against any other boxer-type in his career imo. Him not being as sharp in the second half of hte fight might have something to do with how aggressive he was early. Just to point out, Chavez did NOT throw more leather against Taylor than he did against Pea, the numbers were the same. And he actually did a lot more air swinging against Whitaker, which might have slowed him down.

Then again, the beating Whitaker put on him through rounds 6-9 might have something to do with how slow he looked. Who had ever worked him to the body and head like that to see how he would react?

 

And there is your answer.

Im a boxing Sweet Pea has just said to all you but.

AND THATS A HUGE F*&KING BUT.

I dont watch or like todays boxing enough.

So you can tell me to **** of but i say you are either a fan or a fan of certain area's.

I fu<king E Pernell Whitaker.

I will leave the classic forum now and the fans who love old fighters as do i.

So your God of the classic forum the one that you take oh so serious doesnt even watch fighters of today.

Welcome to classic where any dickhead can be a expert.:rofl

 

I never said I didn't watch current fighters. You have a bad habit of twisting my words around to fit your own delusional agenda.

 

Another one bites the dust.

 

U think i will go away.

MMMMMMMMMMMM hahaahahahahaha. Ill be around, watching waiting.

Robbi hows Sweet Peas nuts. Most people in here have the left over taste of nuts from boxers not posters.

 

Ill get back to the topic of this thread. Cant believe this thread is still going though.

Whitaker had all the tools every classic poster knows what he had. I will only say this.

If he had Pacquiao's offense. No **** Pernell would be talked about in the same sentence as Ray Robinson.

NO ****.

Coke does funny things to humans, Whitaker is a example.

 

Only cocaine beat him. That's about it.

 

ask him why he agreed on pac not lasting 5 rounds with hatton?? :think:rofl:rofl

 

Whittaker has as good offence if not more (due to his variety) as Pac. Just not as much power.

 

BoppaZoo, sorry mate but you're being a proper *****. Whatever if you got this hang-up with Sweet Pea, but attacking the whole classic forum now? Don't **** me off now, just leave it and post on thread topics if you don;t mind.