Sweet Pea ~vs~ Sugar Shane at 135

Agreed. Looking at their amatuer bouts, Shane seemed to have his hands full with Stevie, a working class version of Sweet Pea. I'm not sure Shane beats Stevie, let alone Whitaker.

 

Whitaker's defense is superior, also his boxing ability. Mosley has the definite edge in power and probably edges out Whitaker with body punching. Not much between them in terms of handspeed at lightweight. Mosley without question was quicker during his early welterweight days. He had the physical strength and power over most lightweights.

Mosley would need to be aggressive against Whitaker. A must. Because on the outside he doesn't quite possess as much boxing ability as people tend to buy into. With Mosley being the naturally bigger fighter he'd be best served making this into a physical affair with lots of power punches.


Mosley wasn't at his best at lightweight even though he was more consistent there. Probably because he struggled to make the weight for so long throughout his reign. It effected his speed, and this was certainly evident after Mosley skipped a division to battle the welterweights. He became a better fighter after moving up.

 

If I'm a betting man, I put it all on "Sugar" Shane Mosley.
Mosley would represent by far the strongest & fastest Fighter Pernell would have met at Lightweight.
Mosley's great speed & firepower could have Whitaker in a defensive shell most of the fight. Both fighters were very green, Pernell was even dropped a couple time at 135 against lesser opponent's if I recall correctly.

That said, The Buddy McGirt fight at 147 was defo proof to me that that as Pernell moved up he became a better fighter. (Better to watch)

At lightweight I'd have this a pick 'em fight
Above Lightweight, I'll Take Whitaker by Wide UD.

 

Anyone who thinks Mosley was quicker at lightweight than welterweight against Rivera, Wise, De La Hoya, Diaz, and Taylor seriously needs their eyes checked from an optician. Let your eyes do the talking, not the normal scenario that if a fighter puts on weight "well he must be slower" Don't think what you think is natural so to speak.


Just watch him against Holiday, his first title fight at lightweight. Then check him out against De La Hoya. You'll be shocked at the difference.

 

What a foolish post. You have to know this isn't true, or is it just another one of those cases of you trying to argue a point you don't actually believe?

 

In that case, this post is proof to me that you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to Whitaker.

 

Enlighten us Boxing Guru....
My regards for going against thee.

But who at Lightweight can even compare to Mosely in Pea's past? IY "BG" O.
This is not fact bro, it's not a science than can be proven right or wrong. Knowing about a fighter's history does nothing in an actual fight.
It's Styles Vs. Styles & IMO, Mosley rep's the best Whitaker faced at Lightweight. And vice versa.

 

Difference is, Whitaker actually faced good opposition at LW, far better than Mosley ever faced, despite the nonsense that TBooze is spewing right now for argument's sake it seems. Mosley didn't even face his best challenge in Stevie Johnston, who'd have given him a hard time in his own right, and you guys are willing to pick him over the real thing in Whitaker?

You wanna do styles? How about the fact that Shane always had trouble with a stiff jab? Or the fact that Shane was never an out-boxer, but rather a mid-range, combination thrower at smaller weights? Neither of this looks good for him against a slick outboxer with a piston jab.

As for Whitaker looking better at WW than LW, how the hell can you even say this? Whitaker was far more impressive at LW, had a higher workrate, was faster, more mobile, etc. There is no way he was a better fighter at WW, only difference was the level of opposition he faced. Are you saying Duran was better at WW as well, given the fact that he beat better opposition there than at LW?

Bottom line: Whitaker beat better opposition at both LW and WW than Shane. Whitaker was much better in reality at LW, whereas the same is not true for Shane, as has been described by Robbi. Whitaker has the style to give Shane a boxing lesson.

 

Level of opposition is what makes a great fighter tho..
you can look like a million bucks Vs. lesser comp and still not buy a dime
when you step up in comp. IMO, Whitaker's step up proved how great he was at lightweight.

When it comes to Duran, I don't know because his rise in weight came from laziness and sloth as oppossed to anything else.
But I got to hand it to Duran, the guy kept most of his attributes even well passed the welter division (Which should have been his limit IMO)

 

They will always have the same skills that prove their greatness at higher weights, but at lower weights they will be quicker and more active, facing smaller fighters, therefore obviously they would be more effective.

 

I'd take Whitaker over Mosley by 115 - 112, score over 12 rounds. Shane would be one of the fastest and strongest fighters that Pernell would face but Sweet Pea was that crafty of a boxer and he would likely frustrate Shane more than Vernon Forrest did.

I'd like to see the opinions on a Meldrick Taylor vs Shane Mosley match. Excuse me if that thread has been done.

 

Or what About a
(Prime) Meldrick Taylor Vs. Pernell Whitaker @ 140?
(Would it be different than a Shane match?)

 

Meldrick would've stood a better chance, but he shares some of the same flaws as Shane does, such as being purely a mid and close range fighter facing an outside fighter with a great jab.

However, as shown by his fight with McGirt, his handspeed is so great that he's often able to catch an in and out fighter, therefore Pea would have to be either at a distance throughout the fight or in close range to use his craftiness.

 

Whitaker's athleticism at lightweight was a bigger factor than it was for Mosley at the same weight. Whitaker relied on his defense more at lightweight. He did at welterweight as well, but his ring generalship and reflexes were sharper when he was at 135lbs. Whitaker became slower after moving up, Mosley on the otherhand was quicker after he made the same move. Probably because Whitaker was comfortable at lightweight. He wasn't a massive lightweight like what Duran became during the late 70's or De La Hoya was during the mid 90's.

Whitaker was very good against Chavez at welterweight, but not as quick or athletically fluid as he was against Nelson three years earlier.

Whitaker was better at lightweight, and became flat-footed as he moved up. His speed declined along the way. Mosley got quicker after moving up. I actually read a piece on Mosley recently and he said that when he was was fighting as a lightweight he was unaturally boiling himself down. He should have been fighting at welterweight much earlier than he did. Maybe this explains his rapidly increased level of speed when he jumped up to 147lbs. It was the right weight for him.


Mosley's only chance against Whitaker is to draw him into a war. Because if he stands off he'd get rattled with the jab. Mosley's own jab was used as a range finder for his heavy arillery. Mid-range was where he was at his most effective. It gave him the room to work the body and head with both hands. Usually the left hook to the body and the right hand over the top. But don't forget that Whitaker was good at twisting with his opponents shots inside and covering up to protect his ribcage. He knew how to tuck those elbows in tightly and he was hardly straight-up and down.