Who is the most underated fighter on this forum

Well I can't remember anyone underrating Leonard, but then again I haven't been here much for three weeks.

 

when he was at middlewieght he lost everything that got him there speed combo's jab he was only a left hooker...a real shame

 

So do you think Vasquez won that fight?

How about mentioning how Gil Clancy had Whitaker winning the fight even WITHOUT the two points that were deducted from Vasquez for hitting behind the head?

 

Maybe you need to re-watch Whitaker against Ramirez I. Whitaker's movement was constant, and in a similar manner to Leonard's against Duran. If you watch Leonard against Duran in New Orleans, his punch out-put was not very high. He threw about 10-15 jabs maximum during each round, spanked Duran with a right hand lead, and kept his distance. Very seldom did Leonard throw 3-4 punch combinations. Leonard's balance throughout the fight was much more defensive than offensive. He boxed a smart fight and made Duran miss, then made him pay, but not very busy.

Whitaker has the style to move like Leonard and keep things cute, he'd have a higher jab out-put as well. Especially going on the evidence of Whitaker's jab activity against Ramirez during their first fight when he fought in a similar fashion to Leonard in New Orleans.

But its the Nelson fight which impresses me most in my arguement. He revealed much more weapons combined with superb ring generalship. Ramirez I was a jab exclusive show.

Leonard was never as effective as Whitaker while going backwards. If you watch Leonard's rematch with Duran, he moves constantly and boxes, but he steps in with punches. He's stationary when letting power punches go, and while circling and moving he's getting off with the jab. Whitaker could do all that, but he could also box effectively while moving backwards at the same time. Mind, I don't mean side to side movement while scoring with the jab, I mean going backwards.

 

You talk about workrate - Whitaker's higher output would not necessarily bode well for him. It means he would be more stationary and offering Duran more chances to counter punch. Leonard, by only throwing the occasional punch and concentrating more on defending himself he was not letting Duran do what he wanted to do, and that was dish out the damage. Again; Whitaker was slower than Leonard; speed was a big factor in the Duran rematch.

But anyway, that's irrelevant. The peak lightweight Duran of around '78 was a far better fighter than the drained version who quit against Leonard. But I suppose we'll agree to disagree.

 

I think you missed my point entirely, or simply not taking my points into consideration. Whitaker was clearly much more effective than Leonard while moving away from an opponent. Whitaker could score while on the move backwards with the jab as his opponent is advancing. Leonard on the otherhand never done this against Duran, and when he was authorative with his work it was by stepping in with power punches. And when boxing effectively and scoring, he was moving side-to-side, not going backwards.

"It means he would be more stationary and offering Duran more chanes to counter punch". Whitaker's high workrate would bolde well for him. His high workrate doesn't just means standing and exchanging and becoming a stationary target, encouraging Duran's counter punching and heavy weaponry. I mean high punch output mainly in terms on jab activity, as I explained with his performance against Ramirez, when he was constantly on the move at distance, in a similar fashion to Leonard.

The peak Duran of the late 70's was a far better version than the one who quit against Leonard. I beat you to that one, as I stated this a couple posts ago. This is Duran v Whitaker at lightweight anyway, not welterweight. Im using his showing in the rematch with Leoanrd as a guage.

 

I'll reply in a while.

 

We both make valid points. One thing is written in stone, Whitaker beats Duran at lightweight in my eyes, and roles reversed with yourself.

 

The Barbados Demon Joe Walcott the guys achievements are amazing and yet I rarely see him mentioned when ppl talk about the "greats". Nat Fleischer described him as the greatest welterweight ever and he was the idol of Jersey Joe Walcott who regards him as the greatest pound 4-pound fighter alongside Ray Robinson.

 

You addressed everything except the speed factor. Leonard was faster with both hands and feet than Whitaker, and was more mobile, even though you think Whitaker could match him there.

 

Leonard was quicker than Whitaker with his hands, but never had the same variety regarding defense. Whitaker was just as quick with his movement at lightweight, although you could argue either way.

Duran at lightweight never faced anyone quite like Whitaker. Buchanan and De Jesus were decent operators, but not anywhere near Whitaker's ballpark.

I will freely admit, Whitaker never shared a ring with an opponent of Duran's calibre either.

 

IMO the best pure boxers will almost always lose to the cream of the boxer-punchers.

It's simply an inherently inferior and less efficient and balanced way of fighting, even though pure-boxers are some of my favourite fighters.

Nicolino Locche for example is a great example of a defensive specialist with almost nothing else going for him.Whitaker not quite as one dimensional as that of course, but he doesn't compare to the truly great boxer-punchers, especially if the boxer-puncher has a steady jab(which admittedly Duran did not).

For instance for all their undoubted flair, someone like Whitaker or Canto will rarely ever outbox one of the Sugar Ray's or a Harold Johnson, masao ohba or John Conteh type fighter.They don't have the offense for it and if the jab is equalled or taken away like Leonard did with Benitez then that's it.THe superior variety of leads that the boxer puncher has(with more aggressive mindset in place to use them)inevitably carries the day.

A good example of how Duran vs Whitaker would play out imo is the first Hilario Zapata vs Jung-Koo Chang fight where Hilario gets a gift decision ina tough fight.Very similar styles at play there.

I could see Whitaker beating Duran perhaps once, but over a series of fights i'm fairly certain he doesn't have enough depth to his game to win.The master box-puncher would prevail, albeit not easily

 

No need for a return argument from me then, I'll simply wait until next month when you lean towards Duran :good

 

This is a very good post. Whilst I think it's better to deal with each match up on its own terms, as a general point of view I think you are correct.

I was thinking of Willie Pep and Sandy Saddler as well when reading your post. IMO it didn't matter when Pep fought Saddler, it would always be a nightmare for Pep to beat him.

Whitaker might pull off one masterpiece in a series with Duran where he outboxes him and wins a decision, but most likely he will find himself being overwhelmed and dropping 9-6 type decisions.