I didn't follow Whitaker during his time due to his fights not being shown here in Sweden, but looking at him now against Chavez, McGirt, Nelson, Ramirez and Haugen, I can't for the life of me understand why he would have the reputation as boring as he seemed to have. While being a slick boxer, he was by no means a safety first pot-shot artist like Floyd above 130. Whitaker was very active and liked to mix it up even against guys like Chavez and McGirt. He didn't have knockout power, but only the most primitive boxing fans should confuse that with being boring. Because he sure as hell didn't slap with his punches either. What am I missing here?
You have to understand nuance, to appreciate Whitaker. Many fans just appreciate aggression. I mean many Mexicans still think Ramirez and Chavez legitatimately beat Whitaker. Whitaker was a fantastic fighter. That said, I can understand why many fans found him boring. His defense was extraordinary and there was never any two way action in his fights. He dominated McGirt and Chavez, as well as Ramirez. And he wasn't a big puncher so a lot of fights he dominated went the full distance. I was at the second McGirt fight. McGirt was a one handed fighter at that point having damaged his left rotator cuff. Whitaker dominated but the fight was seriously devoid of action.
defensive fights are sometimes seen as boring. Benitez was also in his day. Pernell had that kind of crawly style which he has referred to as the matrix where he would move and guys would miss him because of his head movement and resetting, and the whole fight was that way round after round.
Because he had several absolutely boring fights and even in fights that weren't boring he cruised at the end of fights rarely trying to finish guys late
I rewatched that one last night, and I definitely didn't think so. It turned a bit one-sided towards the end, but I think it was a very good fight. The first one as well, even though you can perhaps criticize Whitaker for taking the last rounds off. Yes, he didn't have power and, yes, he wasn't a take two to give one fighter, but he definitely took risks and he was very active. Tactically like a more active Ward, I'd say. And someone who thought either Chavez or Ramirez beat him just shouldn't watch boxing.
And the suits at HBO & Showime wanted the ko's. And exciting styles. But Duva and Main Events was pretty powerful themselves at the time so they could keep him on those networks and not alter his style or submit to that pressure. I think that is a major reason another boxer type altered his style around that time to make the networks happy and his promoter did not have the juice to fight it; the Goosen's and Michael Nunn. Just a theory. But if the networks were telling the promoters and managers what they wanted or preferred, don't think for a nanosecond that message is not conveyed to the fighter.
Yeah, but I'm surprised that so many on this forum seem to have the same preferences. Because the fights against Roger Mayweather, Ramirez, Haugen, Pendleton, Nelson, Chavez and McGirt are fights with a good dose of action, albeit often one-sided. They are hardly stereotypical Floyd fights, but he still seem to face the same kind of criticism.
Nunn was safety first all the way up through the Toney loss. He only got flat footed when he moved up to 168 lbs. The Kalambay fight was an aberration and he wasn't ecactly going toe to toe with Toney. He just got caught
Disagree. He fought Barkley much different than other guys. He slugged with Roldan as well. Both of those guys were made to order for a pick and peck and keep them off balance w/ that tall rangy southpaw style. But long gone where the pick and peck days. And I do not think the Nunn's legs went as the reason for the style change.
Whitaker and May weather were the 2 most boring lighter weight fighters in my lifetime. A fight between the two could raise the stock in NoDose. Just writing their names I want to fall aslee..........