ROY JONES JR or PERNELL WHITAKER

You reckon Duran would hit a prime Whitaker as often as Trinidad hit a shot Whitaker? I certainly hope not.

"Whitaker took Tito's shots. So what? That doesn't mean that Whitaker would stand up to Duran's shots because the fact is, Tito doesn't punch as quickly, as closely, or as often as prime Duran. Never mind the myriad other advantages Duran has offensively, defensively, and simultaneously"


With the above your trying to make such a case.

The point I'm trying to make is that Whitaker when past his prime, legs gone, reflexes not the same, got involved in a war with Trinidad, who punched harder than Duran at lightweight, and lasted 12 rounds. So even though Trinidad aint got the variation of offense and defense of Duran it wasn't exactly like Trinidad had to go looking for Whitaker. You can put your house on it that Whitaker aint getting hit as regularly against Duran than he did against Trinidad.

 

The answer to your question is Pernell Whitaker.

He fought in tougher divisions throughout his career & even without the power of a Roy Jones, showed how good a pure boxer he was by hardly losing a round in his prime.

Like I say, RJJ didnt lose many rds in his best days but he had power to earn respect & after 135 lbs Whitaker always faced men with a size & strength advantage & he still dominated similar to the way jones did.

Ps. I wont debate that RJJs peak was v Toney but I felt Whitakers was v Ramirez (2nd fight) rather than Nelson.

Also... I feel its CHAVEZ & Whitaker..... not Jones & Whitaker who were the best in the last 20 yrs.

Cheers.

 

Even though I disagree with with you that Duran would beat, even stop Whitaker. My point was to do with Whitaker taking Duran's punches, and I made the comparison with Trinidad. And thats what my views have been about over the last 2-3 posts.

 

I neither say nor imply that Duran would hit a prime Whitaker as often as Tito hit a shot Whitaker. You arrived at that conclusion on your own. My post addressed your assertion that the power differential between Tito and Duran is valid. One has nothing to do with the other.

I'm saying that you shouldn't be so sure.

I do not believe that the ESB Whitaker Corner fully considers Duran at his best, opting instead to throw up the Viruet fights or Leonard II as appropriate to what he would do against Whitaker -as if Whitaker was a runner and as if Duran was at his best for any of those.

Duran brings elements that are more suited to overwhelming Whitaker than anyone Whitaker ever faced.

And anyway, whether or not Duran has the power to stop Whitaker is beside the point. Defeating Duran at LW requires more than defensive skill or mobility -you need enough power of your own to keep him honest. You don't win fights on elusiveness alone and Whitaker just doesn't have guns that prime Duran would respect. Therein lies the crux.

 

You're forgetting that the Whitaker Tito fought and beat on, especially in the second half, was absolutely nothing like the prime Whitaker Duran would be facing at LW. This goes both ways.

Bringing up the Tito argument does hold water because it shows how much an old, shot, crack-addled Pea could take against a huge puncher even when he didn't have the reflexes to get out of the way. Just how much punishment an old, shot version could actually take. Against Duran, he's facing a much more versatile fighter, but one who doesn't hit nearly as hard, and Whitaker would not only be in far better shape, but far more elusive and effective all around. Duran has more to his game than Tito aside from power yes, but he wouldn't be facing the same Whitaker that Tito fought, not by a long shot.

 

Something people seem to forget or just not take into consideration about Duran is that he actually got frustrated with movers. He didn't calmly pick his shots waiting for the right opportunity to strike as his body shots wore his opponents down, all the while being outboxed in early rounds like Chavez did. He went right at you, albeit in a very skillful way.

You want people to forget about the fights with Viruet. OK, what about the rematch? I undderstand what you're saying about styles and class, but you're acting like Duran is leagues above Whitaker in class so the styles issues wouldn't matter at all. If they didn't matter, surely he'd have dominated guys like Viruet and Bizzarro much easier. As I said, Bizzzarro didn't even have an offense and he managed to make it to the 15th, though admittedly he was a runner.

 

Stonehands. I have a tremendous amount of respect for you as a poster but sometimes you steer away from 'simplicity'.

Trinidad as a welterweight hit harder than Duran did at lightweight. Trinidad fought a shot Whitaker and Duran is being matched against a prime version. And Whitaker wasn't knocked out in his entire career. The chances of Duran stopping a Whitaker? I don't think so. And my arguement was based on Whitaker's durability and Duran's power. Accumulation is taken into consideration. But not in his wildest dreams could Duran landed on a prime Whitaker like Trinidad accomplished. I tried to give you a straight forward awnser "power". I know Duran was a greater fighter, but the bottom line is that when Trinidad struck his opponents full force with a punch he hit guys harder than Duran.

I neither say nor imply that Duran would hit a prime Whitaker as often as Tito hit a shot Whitaker. You arrived at that conclusion on your own.

So whats your case ?

I'm back in adding a bit to this after reading your replies. My whole arguement was strictly based on Duran not stopping Whitaker, not the result of the fight. Thats the size of it.

 

Well he did fight Viruet twice. And Whitaker was no runner correct, but he did fight off the backfoot like no other when the situation called for it. He literally never got put on the ropes because he knew how to work the jab, feints, angles, and just in general knew the ring so well.

True. He has more versatility in his style with anyone. One thing though, Duran was great at getting in on fighters because of his underrated speed and feinting ability, which was great to watch. However, though he did show it at times, there were times when he just didn't seem interested in cutting the ring off, but rather opting to go with the first method. That could work to his advantage given the fact that with Whitaker there was no cutting off the ring, but it could also make it more difficult to close the distance, considering Whitaker would be always on the move behind the jab.

He has a better offense than the guys who gave Duran trouble with movement, that's for sure. He'd be more offensive than even Leonard was in their 2nd meeting. But as we all know, that wasn't the best Duran. Still, while Duran was the better fighter than Whitaker ever faced, and would present him more stylistic problems, Whitaker was the best ring master Duran ever faced, with a lot more in his arsenal than given credit for.

 

We are considering Duran at his best, but the Viruet fight and Bizzaro can't be overlooked. Yes, Duran wasn't at his best for those fights. Want to know why? Because he never looked convincing with what was in front of him. Viruet made him look ordinary and Duran wasn't in the type of fight he craved. If Viruet stood and traded with him he'd more than likely have been knocked out down the stretch. Whitaker isn't De Jesus, who was more straight up and down with less skills. Easier to hit with not as many varied weapons as Whitaker. And Whitaker was better inside than him when mixing offense with defense.

Whitaker doesn't need power to beat Duran. He's got everything else to make up for what he lacks in power. And these are movement, speed, ring generalship, durability, the ability to change heights; crouching down inside, the ability inside and mid-range to cover-up effectively, a superbly accurate jab, combinations, the ability to punch effectively laterally or backing up in straight lines. IMO he has the style to make Duran think and limit Duran's ability to mount sustained attacks aka dropping his punch output.

 

Duran didn't look any worse against Bizzaro or Viruet than Whitaker did against someone like Pendleton IMO.None of them are really fights that pointed out weaknesses per se, unless we assume Whitaker is going to be fighting to survive and make Duran look bad rather than to win.

Duran could go through the motions when in with someone mostly trying to stay away from and not throwing many punches.He wasn't some dedicated old school fighter that always gave 100percent after all; not in mindset.He was more like the vastly overrated Toney in that respect and who knows, it might even cost him against Whitaker or some other greats.

Dejesus was a more complete fighter than Duran or Whitaker IMO.Doesn't mean he was better, but he attempted more things and had a truly well-rounded classic style.

 

Interesting take, I agree with the bit about Duran's mindset, which I actually pointed out earlier somewhat. I think this style of fighter would be the worst for him with that taken into consideration.

As for Dejesus, depends on what you mean. If you mean his style was one that seemed more well-rounded rather than suited to certain strengths, than I'd agree. If you mean he was more skilled, I'd disagree.

 

yeah, i mean he was more well-rounded, not more skilled.