Double is nuts on this one. Whitaker's ability to NOT get hit while always remaining in position AND on balance to throw combinations, is one of the most difficult things in boxing.... Actually it's one of the most difficult things in any sport to do with the ease that Whitaker did. I've boxed for fun for 35 years, but you don't need to box to understand this. Just list the guys in history that could do it like Whitaker and you'll find he's in very good and very limited company.
Thank you. I only asked him if he had boxed because it's essentially an instant realization that making someone miss with your feet planted is fucking HARD. :: It's not just about fighting defensively. There was a lot more to Whitaker than that.
And don't get me wrong. My aim isn't to down-play the skill and ability involved in making an opponent miss. Especially when it's done in a sustained fashion and isn't sandwiched between illegal holding and other methods of stalling the action. The point I'm making is that it's not categorically the case that, "making your opponent miss," considering everything else that that entails, is harder than every alternative. I submit that in fact a proper integration of offense and defense is the end all and be all, and that everything in between is a compromise meant to compensate for a weakness in some area.
It's not that I hate him. I just think he gets way more adolation than he deserves. I still remember the shock of seeing Whitaker/Nelson for the first time. Based on everyone's account, I expected to see an absolute schooling wipe-out. Instead, I saw a competitive fight, with the most notable aspect being the obvious difference in size between the two fighters, and the obvious fact that Nelson didn't belong at 135 (as evidenced by his decision to move back down to 130 following the fight).
I thought it was a 5-6 point win for Whitaker. I never thought it was as close as it was judged. That being said, we're also talking about one of the best 125-130 pounders ever.
You could argue he won most of the rounds. But the rounds were close. Point is, he didn't, "totally school" Nelson the way it was painted (and still is). And the other point is, Nelson was clearly too small to be in there in the first place.
I remember watching Nelson-Whitaker when it happened and walking away thinking Pea was an absolute maestro in the ring. I thought the same thing after the Chavez fight as well. Neither was about winning every second of every round. It was about standing right in front of great offensive fighters and hitting them far more than they hit him. And never getting hurt, stunned or physically beat-up in the process.
tack that up to good mgmt. Chavez and nelson were both out of their elrments at 147 and 135 respectively.
Fuck off. Chavez had been taking bouts over 140 for years before Pea. That good management sure came in handy when the scorecards were read.
If Whitaker was a big puncher, this might have some merit. Unfortunately both fights went the distance and Whitaker just flat out beat them in evenly contested boxing matches where weight wasn't a factor. Whitaker was a superior fighter to both guys and he proved it in the ring.
See. This is a huge misconception. Huge. The idea that size matters only when the larger fight is a puncher? Are you serious? What about the opponent's punching power and the fact it is compromised in the face of a size disadvantage? What about strength? The kind used to control space and distance the way Whitaker did? What about the fact that Whitaker's crappy punching power suddenly becomes adequate against a smaller fighter? What about the impact on stamina? Given that the larger fighter is expending less energy against a smaller opponent? Please.
Agreed, he made it look pretty easy for Groves as he plodded around the ring with a confused look on his face, getting outboxed :kidcool: