What if...Meldrick vs Sweet Pea?

In a KO Magazine interview, circa 1989 or 1990, Taylor was posed with that question. His response was essentially, "I don't know". He later went on to state that he wouldn't have been able to "get up" for his friend and that as such, he'd figure Whitaker to beat him, being so competitive and all.

About that period, KO also interviewed Sweet Pea and posed the question. Whitaker admitted to the friendship and stated that he wasn't big on such a match-up and that "there had to be a better way to get a big payday" than to face his friend.

Personally, I'd lean towards Whitaker via close decision.

 

hmmm, this would be a FANTASTIC scientific fight. in terms of hand speed meldrick takes it but he'd be firing at air all night, much like oscar was. Meldrink was a philly fighter and much more aggressive and would win rounds with pressure and punch output but ultimately whitaker would steal rounds on flurries and effective counter punching, winning a close fight

 

Pernell Whitaker became what Meldrick Taylor was supposed to become.

 

Whitaker wins this by outboxing him on the outside

 

Whitaker by Unanimous. I am not so sure about the above sources for what they thought on the fights either. Maybe, being interviewed early in their careers, that is what they said, but in a later interview, from what I understand, Whitaker talked about their sparring days and how he used to best Meldrick because Meldrick's stuff(handspeed and such) simply "didn't work on him". I believe it.

I think Whitaker is certainly skilled and crafty enough to beat someone who was essentially just a very quick handed fighter.

 

Taylor knocks Sweet Pea out with a beautiful right hand, left hook, right uppercut combination in the 7th round.

 

well, what about thier performances against mcgirt and chavez? it seems to me like meldrick was more impressive against buddy and he was schooling chavez way worse prior to the stoppage:huh

 

You've said yourself that you have Meldrick up 7 rounds to 4 prior to being stopped in the last round. In other words, had he not been stopped, you'd have had the bout 7 rounds to 5 for Taylor with a 10-8 round to Chavez.

Whitaker beat Chavez about 9-3, possibly 8-4, and sustained much less damage than Taylor did. Now that I've completely broken apart that point, I'll move onto to the next.

Yes, a prime Meldrick at 140 beat McGirt more convincingly than Pea did at 147 the first fight, but Pea essentially dominated him in the rematch, and nobody ever considered Pea a KO puncher, so it's unfair to compare a performance of his to that of a KO puncher by slating the other guy was more impressive.

Either way, this is about a potential matchup between Taylor and Pea, not their opponents. If you want me to break down how I think this ones goes, I will, for about the 100th time.

 

I'm not saying Meldrick was a KO puncher either, just that his style was not as driven towards finishing someone as Meldrick's was.

 

I believe there was something wrong with McGirt in the Taylor fight. I believe SalSanchezfan or somebody mentioned that McGirt claimed he had an ear infection or something along those lines. He looked lethargic and had nothing after about the 2nd round.

 

i think it was another poster that said that, i had it 8-3.

 

Nah, it was you, you must've re-watched it recently and changed your score.

Either way, Whitaker won the fight 9-3 without taking any substantial damage, Taylor lost by KO, and even if he was allowed to continue, would've won 8 rounds to 4 with a 10-8 round against him. That, combined with the immense level of punishment he took, leads me to believe you're quite a ways off with your "Meldrick was schooling Chavez way worse" bit.

 

Nobody was supposed to be what Whitaker became. Taylor never had the ability to stand up close and make an opponent miss the way Whitaker did. And Taylor wasn't anywhere near as flexible from the waist up like Whitaker was either.

Taylor more straight up and down, with less special effects.