Whitaker vs Ramirez I

Ramirez II

:bush

 

Its all about variety. And Whitaker had more variety than Chavez. He could come forward and put on a clinic, and while going backwards. He was a much better boxer than Chavez. He had a better jab, and his defense was obviously superior. Have you watched Whitaker v Ramirez II at all?. And if you watch Whitaker against Chavez, you'll see that Whitaker was a very good inside operator. Standing his ground, and clearly landing clean effective power punches. Chavez' patient pressuring style was a joy to watch, and he was a bull who worked the body and cut the ring off like a true master. But he was also very hittable, and prefered to take some punches to give them back in return. Whitaker on the otherhand, could do it all.

 

Sweet Pea was a defensive master...he fought off the backfoot and did it as good as anybody I have ever seen. A runner is Andre Dirrell, a GREAT fighter is Pernell Whitaker. When he backed up, he was still throwing punches, landing clean shots, and making the other guy miss...THAD is effective boxing for you.

 

I posted the Chavez fight, and my round for round.

So I will say this again....

ROUND BY ROUND SCORECARD OR SHUT THE **** UP!!!

:good

And you are only proving all of us right by ignoring this. Its a simple request...watch the fight, score it round by round and post the scores. This way we can know what rounds you think Chavez won...and how crazy you really are.

So scorecard or STFU!!!

:yep

 

Whitaker was one of the greatest and most complete prize fighters even to lace'em up.

He never had much power. But lets look at it this way. Not having power is a major disadvantage. If you have serious power, and can KO opponents early. Like Tyson, Trinidad, etc. The fight is over. But fighters who don't have much power need to work for their wins. And Whitaker certainly worked for his, and done it with class. The man had everything. His variety of offense and defense was ridiculously awesome.

 

guerrerosoul, here's mine...
1 Whitaker (I thought he did enough to win the 1st round, could have gone to JCC)
2 Chavez (close round, gave it to JCC)
3 Whitaker
4 Whitaker
5 Chavez (his best round of the fight)
6 Whitaker
7 Whitaker
8 Whitaker
9 Whitaker
10 Whitaker
11 Whitaker
12 Chavez

117-111 Pernell Whitaker (9 Rounds to 3 Rounds)
I could easily have had it 116-112 (8 Rounds to 4 Rounds)

LET'S SEE YOURS

 

Well done mate. My card is the same as yours, only that I gave Chavez the 2nd and gave Whitaker the 5th. In any case, you can give both rounds to Chavez and he still loses big on our cards :good

 

What did u enjoy more, his fight with haugen or roger mayweather? I say his fight with roger was by far his best performance.

 

My personal favourite is Whitaker v Nelson.

 

I like the 2nd Ramirez fight the most

 

I dont know, it seems to me that his fight with roger is where he actually showed alot of agression offensively. At welterweight he would most likely lose to the big welterweights, i mean the buddy mcgirt fight showed how good he was at welterweight, he barely beat him. Then after his win over vasquez, he just fought contenders/ journeyman until his loss to de la hoya. His welterweight resume is good, but i've seen better resume at 147.

 

I wouldn't say odd, i judge pernell based on how i watch him fight. I dont nuthug him, nor do i intentionally bash him. Alot of his supporters blow his accomplishments out of proportion. At lightweight, he had a great career, there is no doubt about it. However, people act like he would beat all the best fighters at 140 and 147 just cuz he beat pineda at 140 and edged out a win over mcgirt.

 

That's a well articulated, in-depth post mate, but it leads to an absurd conclusion: that Pep, Pea and Nico aren't truly great fighters.

We hold fighters like Chavez and Holyfield in higher esteem than Willie Pep? Ah.... since when? Have you ever seen either of them CLOSE to Pep on an all time list? I haven't.

Whilst there is definitely something to be said of fighters who break their opponents down physically and mentally so as to stop them or make them quit, I think you are too narrowly defining the terms of engagement in a boxing match. Boxing is much more diverse than what your post implies.

The ultimate aim isn't as you suggest to stop or make your opponent quit, the ultimate aim is to win the contest. One of the ways of doing that is to break your opponents down physically and mentally so that you stop them or make them quit. Another way of doign it is by hitting and not getting hit in return. That's what Whitaker did against Chavez; that's WHY he won the fight.

You might have a preference for fighters that can steamroll their opponents, and I'm sure most fight fans do likewise, that's what makes fighters like Chavez so popular, but to say that only fighters who match your preference are truly great is to undervalue the art of hitting and not getting hit. It may seem dainty to have boxing reduced to such a method of operation, but to undervalue it is to undervalue the key component that goes along with power/strength/will which you champion: skill. It's that which Whitaker had in truckloads, and its that which enabled him to blunt Chavez's heavy artillery and outpoint him at just about every turn.

 

My reply to his post was very similar to yours.

 

He beat mcgirt the first time by like 1 or 2 points, hardly a dominating performance. Many people on this site think that he would dust mosley and mayweather with ease, the fact of the matter is that i can see both winning 5-7 rounds against whitaker. If pernell beat camacho, rosario and mancini at lightweight too, i would rank him as the #1 lightweight of all times without a shadow of a doubt.