Why didn't Whitaker fight Camacho or Rosario at 135lb in late 80s?

I think Hector was one of those people you just don't fight. managers would steer their man to anyone else, say a Freddie Pendleton, a Juan laporte, Mayweather, ie; your typical retread. This is why Hector had trouble getting big fights.

 

I agree, after Chavez saw Camacho struggle with Haugen, then he decided, o wait, now i'll fight him. Yet he wouldnt even mention his name between 1985-1990.

 

Yeah I'm sure Chavez would have been absolutely shitting in his pants after he saw Rosario, a past prime Boza-Edwards and a near shot Ray Mancini take it to Camaho.

You want to claim Camacho was avoided between 84-86? Fine, after that, I see no reason why Chavez had to fear him.

 

I'm sure camacho was overly impressed when he saw Chavez struggle heavily to beat laporte and lockridge. Two smaller fighters and not exactly in thier primes either, and chavez beats them by 1 or 2 rounds.

 

Whitaker fought Juan Nazario, who was coming off a win over Rosario. Hence that fight never happened.

 

Lockridge at the time Chavez faced him was still a better fighter than ayone Camacho ever beat at the time he beat them, and Chavez beat him with an injured hand.

Sure he struggled against Laporte, but the majority of the press didn't come out of that fight thinking he lost like they thought Camacho lost to Rosario. And then when Camacho subsequently struggled against the likes Boza Edwards and Mancini, well, let's just say that it wouldn't have made Chavez too intimidated to fight him.

87 and on, Camacho showed nothing to fear, let's be serious here.

 

Whitaker was a little green when Camacho and Rosario were in their primes (84-86). By the time he was ready to take on the best fighters, the likes of Camacho and Rosario were no longer hot property.

Had Whitaker fought Rosario and Camacho around 88-90, he would have shut them both out, for by that stage they were no better than the fighters Whitaker actually did beat, and to tell the truth, they were probably worse.

Would have been great for him to tackle the likes of Camacho and Rosario in 85-86, but you can't really blame a guy 1-2 years out of the amatuers for not doing it.

That he took on someone like Roger Mayweather when he couldn't even expose one of Roger's only flaws (chin) because of his lack of pop, in only his 12th pro fight, its great in and of itself when you compare it to the progression of most other greats.

 

I would pick the ramirez of 85 to ko lockridge. Vinny Pazienza wasnt exactly washed up either when Camacho toyed with him, I mean he beat greg haugen immeidiately after this fight and then beat gilbert dele after at 154.

Camacho was worse than them? Really he would have always toyed with ramirez and i'm sure he would have toyed with jorge paez too. Not to mention that he avenged his greg haugen loss in 1991 after that bull**** deduction point. Yeah he was worse than them, ok. I dont think hector camacho between 1989-1991 is going to drop deceions to louie lomelli, anthony jones, policarpo diaz and juan nazario.

 

I couldn't care. Whitaker was head and shoulders above both anyway.

 

At lightweight maybe he would, maybe he wouldn't. Mancini didn't seem to have too much problems with Ramirez, maybe Lockridge wouldn't have either. The size advantage may be telling though. One thing I strongly believe is that Lockridge would have done better against Camacho than Ramirez did. Ramirez was great at the toe to toe stuff, but movement bothered him, hence his struggles with Camacho.

And lost to Haugen and Mayweather immediately before facing Camacho. Paz was ok, he did box well against Haugen in their third fight (had him winning by a point), but probably still would have lost had it been 12 or 15 rounds.

Around 1990 I see him losing to Azumah Nelson and I'd favour Freddie Pendleton and Roger Mayweather to defeat him.

I wouldn't even count out Poli Diaz. You'll probably laugh at the mention of Diaz, but Diaz did better agianst Whitaker than Ramirez and Haugen did.

 

Just cuz Pazienza lost to roger and haugen, it means hes no longer in his prime when he fought camacho, nice logic. Roger Mayweather was losing left and right to random people between 1984-1989, yet hes in his prime when Chavez and Whitaker beat him, ok there buddy.

I odnt care if you seem him losing to a guy that got a gift against fenech, i'm positive the betting line would have favoured Camacho to out box him. I remember a thread like this was posted 3 or 4 months ago and most people picked camacho to beat nelson cuz he's simply better.

Your actually doing yourslef a favour too, because now you are making it sound like the camacho that chavez beat was garbage. I mean most people hold chavez in a high regard cuz he beat camacho and got that gift ref stoppage against meldrick taylor. I highly doubt anyone would have put chavez in thier top 30 by beating the haugen, rosario and ramirez's of the world.

I wouldnt favour pendleton to beat him at all, hes too slow and way too inconsistent, i highly doubt he would ko camacho, cuz he wont win a decision.

 

Why should I even bother arguing this with you anyways. The boxing media would have given Pernell Whitaker far more credibility as a lightweight if he took on the undefeated Camacho and beat him at lightweight. Really no one really cares that he beat the other guys. Pernell doesnt have a single legacy win at lightweight. His wins over Chavez and Mcgirt is why he's high p4p. Every ATG lightweight would beat azumah nelson, hardly a legacy fight.

 

Pernell Whitaker out points both Camacho & Rosario @ LW.
(He was still green during their prime)

 

Camacho wins because he's way faster than everyone else. Case closed.