Steady on, boy. Holmes wins a close UD on their respective best nights. The 'Mallard' myth (said as if Larry ducked every fighter in the galaxy) is getting slightly out of hand, surely it's up to the match makers (King etc) from time to time to have made these fights.
I wasn't having a dig at you in particular JT1, I know you're a dead on guy an' all that and one of the most respected posters 'round these parts. The widespread Mallard thing is exagerated. It's just a pity that fight was never made along with a few possible rematches, then Holmes legacy would get far less flack. I guess we'll never know. :-( Now I wasn't around at the time but surely it wasn't always on his part that he didn't face certain fighters. Same applies for Dempsey, Jeffries, Johnson etc.
I'm glad you enjoy my posts Robbi! ......but I think if you follow along other threads you'll find that your theory that I reward only come foward fighters is'nt correct. Two fights that come to mind .....I had Floyd Mayweather beating JL Castillo in both fights......and I recently had Winky Wright (who was more the aggressor) losing quite handily to Bernard Hopkins! Pernell Whitaker could get just as dirty and nasty as Bernard Hopkins did vs Winky Wright, but he just did'nt do it consistently from round to round vs his best opposition. It all comes down to effectiveness. While alot of the Whitaker backers point to DLH and Chavez not being effective, they completely blind themselves of the fact that Pernell was equally or even more ineffective when you judge these fights on a round by round basis! Sometimes the truth hurts the purist wanabee's!:yep :deal
What messed Taylor up was Chavez's heavy hands. Whitaker had a decent punch, but I doubt he would hurt Taylor. Taylor had a good chin. This could be the difference. On the other hand, Whitaker had a tendency to rise to the occasion.
How so? You dont have to rise to the occasion when your opposition is'nt at your level. I guess you can say he rose to the occasion and drew with the great Chavez...... .....but in his biggest fights, the best you can say is that he drew with Chavez. My point is that Pernell Whitaker is'nt a fighter to point to as a posterboy fighter that rises to the occasion. In reality, he only had that one big fight with Chavez that got him a draw, his other occasion fights were when he was visibly past his best.....namely DLH and Trinidad!
I think he rose to the occasion against DLH. You have to remember he had looked terrible against Rivera and Hurtado in his previous fights, and DLH was a 3-1 favourite going into the bout. It turned out to be anything but a 3-1 fight (even though you gave DLH 3 rounds for every 1 you gave to Whitaker )
There all fine fighters, but none of those guys are on the level of say Chavez, DLH, and Trinidad. Some fighters are fortunate to have the opportunity that there are great fighters in and around his era that they have the opportunity to be able to rise to such occasions. Someone like Ray Leonard who had multiple opportunities vs the likes of Duran, Hearns, and Hagler. Unfortunately for Sweet Pea, that opportunity for him while he was still prime, came only in his draw against Chavez. ......and to answer Scientist.....Bingo, as you said, I viewed DLH-Whitaker and had DLH up by a wide score.....so to me, thats not rising to the occasion.
I think a pre-Chavez Taylor would take this by UD. He had the handspeed to connect with Whitaker, heavier hands, and a style that would make the judges give him the close rounds. Even with Sweet Pea's defensive wizardry, I think Taylor would land enough "machine gun" like combos to steal rounds for effective aggression. Mind you, Whitaker would likely dodge a fair amount as well in such a highlight reel fashion as to give his fans youtube video fodder when they'd inevitably claim robbery in this hypothetical fight.
He did more than just rise to the occasion and drew with Chavez. He utterly outboxed and beat Chavez, which resulted in one of the worst robberies of the 90's. He also defeated fine fighters in Haugen, Ramirez, Nelson, Nazario, Pineda, Mcgirt and several others. He unified the lightweight crown, won a belt Jr. Welterweight, and defended the WBC welterweight title some 10 times. If whitaker isn't an all time great who rose to the occasion often, then I don't know what the hell defines a great fighter.
There are plenty of scribes that had the fight close, of the 115-113 variety.The showtime commentators even had it close going into the final two rounds, then they changed their tune to create controversy.The whole media ran with it, and in an age where we did'nt have internet and the ability to post in a boxing forum like this, the Sports Illustrated cover of "Robbed" has carried a heavy stigma of the fight over the years.I'm certain we would have a more varied opinion had Chavez-Whitaker taken place in today's internet age.Let me put it this way and parralel the recent Mayweather-DLH fight.Alot of scribes had Mayweather winning, but quite a few thought DLH eeked it out......There are plenty of posters in this forum who will swear up and down that DLH was robbed......In any regards, most felt it was a close enough fight.........but the point I want to make is that if the DLH-Mayweather fight would have taken place back when Chavez and Whitaker fought, without forums like these for fans to vent.....had that fight been declared a draw back in the day of Chavez-Whitaker.....I'm almost certain we would have had the same caption that was meant to creat controversy..........."Mayweather Robbed!"That Sports Illustrated cover of robbed has imo stereotyped the fight to being a fight that was'nt close.The reality is that there are boxing scribes out there who saw a close fight.Even Max Kellerman who is a big Pernell Whitaker fan and who had Pernell winning vs Chavez, refused when he was working on ESPN to classify the fight alongside the sports biggest robberies.Max when on record as saying that he felt the fight was alot more competitive than what alot of journalist now want to make the fight out to be!Showtime created the controversy, Sports Illustrated followed their lead, and what followed was a brainwashing that created a myth that the fight was'nt close!I invite any non-purist wanabee who has'nt seen the fight, to see it for themselves, and they will see a close fight!
