Feather-fisted Brilliance

it's not that he's a hippety-hop fighter. it's that he lives in the ring by holding, scratching, grappling and basically fighting like a bitch.

 

Riiiight...

& Having Said All that, Kermit Cintron is "Underrated"...


REED:shit:

 

::

 

You might want to trade in the DoubleVision(tm) versions of your fight tapes and watch the actual ones.

 

Double L, I cant imagine what it is like to be so blind that you can't see that a boxer is great because you dislike him

I don't have that problem

Some of the fighters I hate the most all-time, are also some of the best I've ever seen (Leonard, Mayweather to name two)

No amount of revisionist bullshit or ignorance can change the histrocial fact: Pernell Whitaker was a GREAT and DOMINANT fighter, clearly among the 20 best to ever lace them up... He had fantastic defensive skills, great handspeed, a laser right jab, a willingness to fight anybody out there, he had heart and toughness and he had major success... all of that equals GREATNESS

Its not about wether or not I enjoyed him as a boxer, its not about "nuthugging" or whatever, its just the fucking truth... the same way Duran is the truth, Ali is the truth, Leonard, Robinson, Chavez, Arguello, Charles, etc. etc. ... some fighters are undeniably great and he was one of those rare fighters... beyond reproach, wether he was an idiot or not

 

Good post. And it is lame when folks like Double L and wRONg King try to convince folks that Whitaker was the same as the post-Rosario Hector Camacho.

 

I've never tried to convince anyone of that but now that you mention it, I think the two are comparable.

 

I've never tried to convince anyone of that, but now that you mention it I think it's a good comparison.

 

First of all, I don't even know Whitaker. So it's false to say that I don't like him. My guess is he'd be fun to hang out with. What I don't like is his style of fighting.

And Whitaker stands out from the others you've listed (Duran, Ali, Leonard, Robinson, Chavez, Arguello and Charles) because unlike Whitaker, those guys were actually entertaining to watch.

In the final analysis, I can summarize my position like this:

I like fighters who fight to win; I don't like fighters who fight not to lose.

Fighters like Hopkins, Whitaker and Camacho fight not to lose. They don't fight to win.

And there's a common thread among fighters who fight, "not to lose." And it's their fear of getting hit that means having to hold and hit win with stink.

There's no truth in boxing. Promoters have made sure of that.

And by the way. I don't find Whitaker's resume particularly impressive either. His best win is probably against McGirt or Roger Mayweather.

He was good at what he did. I just don't have a lot of respect for what he did. And I'm referring to his stinky style.

And the only fights he didn't exhibit complete stink in were either against guys smaller than him or guys who couldn't punch.

The best was watching Trinidad deal with Whitaker's constant attempts to hug and hit him by placing his forearm in front of his chest. Whitaker ran into it with his neck everytime he tried to go for the stink. It's why he was so thoroughly dominated.

Usually, even when he loses, it's disputed because he's basically smoked the joint out with stink and nobody can tell WTF happened in the fight. It's Whitaker fighting not to lose.

 

Actually...it's a terrible comparison. I know you WANT folks to think Whitaker fought like that, but it's simply not true.

But then what can I expect from someone who thinks Ray Leonard was a just a "runner" and a "grappler".

 

I like fighters who fight to win; I don't like fighters who fight not to lose.

You mean like DLH did against Trinidad?

And by the way. I don't find Whitaker's resume particularly impressive either. His best win is probably against McGirt or Roger Mayweather.

Earlier in this thread you said it was Greg Haugen.Are you back-tracking yet again?

And the only fights he didn't exhibit complete stink in were either against guys smaller than him or guys who couldn't punch.

Examples, please. And REAL ones, please.

The best was watching Trinidad deal with Whitaker's constant attempts to hug and hit him by placing his forearm in front of his chest. Whitaker ran into it with his neck everytime he tried to go for the stink. It's why he was so thoroughly dominated.

No, Whitker was dominated by Trinidad because the fight took place when Trinidad was in his prime years and Whitaker was clearly on the slide.

 

RiDICKulous Comparison, Doub...For All your PSUEDO-Keen Eye, "Subtle Science" BULLSHIT, REED Would Expect U to Notice the Difference in Camacho & Sweet Pea...

They're BOTH Speedy, Athletic Southpaws, but that's about the ONLY Similarity...Camacho was a Straight Up RUNNER...He DIDN'T just "Stick & Move", Instead he was a "Stick & SPRINT" Type...

Whittaker was MUCH More Flat-Footed, MUCH More POCKET Oriented...Whittaker PIVOTED, but RARELY Ran...He Relied on HEAD & UPPER BODY Movement MUCH More than Camacho EVER Dared to...

Whittaker Also BODYPUNCHED & had UNDERRATED Toughness & Killer Instinct...



REED:shit:

 

agREED. Good post. I guess Whitaker isn't as "subtle" as Margarito.

 

Whitaker was one of the best close-range fighters ever to breathe

Hector Camacho was a runner

other than being left handed, fast and arrogant, the two have NOTHING in common stylistically

Double's a clown

 

I like fighters who fight to win; I don't like fighters who fight not to lose.

You mean like DLH did against Trinidad?

Yes. That's exactly what I mean and it's why I maintain that the decision was just.

And by the way. I don't find Whitaker's resume particularly impressive either. His best win is probably against McGirt or Roger Mayweather.

Funny how you don't refute that Whitaker's resume is a little thin for a fighter who some of you would have believe was impossible to beat.

Earlier in this thread you said it was Greg Haugen.Are you back-tracking yet again?

Well, it's often referred to as Whitaker's best "performance". But it wasn't his best "win".

And the only fights he didn't exhibit complete stink in were either against guys smaller than him or guys who couldn't punch.

Examples, please. And REAL ones, please.

Nelson and Haugen

The best was watching Trinidad deal with Whitaker's constant attempts to hug and hit him by placing his forearm in front of his chest. Whitaker ran into it with his neck everytime he tried to go for the stink. It's why he was so thoroughly dominated.

No, Whitker was dominated by Trinidad because the fight took place when Trinidad was in his prime years and Whitaker was clearly on the slide.

No doubt he was on the slide. But he was still unable to bring his stink to bear which is why he got hit with an unprecedented number of clean punches and was knocked down more than once.

 

But you LIKE DLH. So if you don't like fighters who fight not to lose....but you like DLH...it sure sounds like you are picking and choosing based on personal preference. I don't see you holding that performance against DLH and harping on it every chance you get and calling DLH a "bitch".

So these are the only two you could think of...from all of Whitaker's fights? He didn't fight in the made up manner you claim he does in plenty of his fights...including the actual Chavez fight (not the one you have reimagined). In the Whitaker-Chavez fight I (and most rational folks) saw...when Whitaker wasn't frustrating the Hell out of Chavez...he was also banging his body, landing clean punches and backing up Chavez. You try to make it sound like all Whitaker did was hold and run...and that is complete bullshit.

And Whitaker's resume is hardly "thin"...he fought title holders such as:

Chavez (I don't care what the paid off judges said...Whitaker won this fight)
Ramirez (2x) (see above for the first fight)
McGirt (2x)
Vasquez (at 154!)
Nelson
Mayweather
Paez
Pineda
Juan Nazario
Haugen
Jake Rodriguez
Freddie Pendelton

DLH (A good fight that could have gone either way...and this is in DLH's prime and not Whitaker's. If DLH wasn't the next big thing....the decision could have gone to Whitaker)
Trinidad (Whitaker was at the end of the line, but still fought hard and went the distance)

Also won clear and/or lopsided decisions over solid contender types like
Harold Brazier
Anthony "Baby" Jones
Santos Cardona

There is nothing wrong with Whitaker's resume. There is plenty of quality on it.

 

agREED.

 

First of all, I stopped liking ODH around the time he became a promoter and seemed join the promoter's game of manipulating the rankings, monopolizing divisions, and fighting strictly for money.

But that's beside the point. The Trinidad fight was an exception to the rule when it comes to ODH. In general, he fought to win. And I don't think I need to list examples of this. I don't think anyone can refute it. So ODH should be in the same category as Whitaker of fighting not to lose because in 40 fights he did it once? Ridiculous argument.

I'm well aware of Whitaker's resume. Your listing his opponents does nothing to change my opinion that his resume is thin. And even if I'm wrong and the majority of posters agree that it's a fine resume, his victories by and large were excruciating to watch and like I said, due to his approach to fighting which is to fight not to lose.

There's nothing you can say that will change my opinion when it comes to Whitaker the fighter. I don't enjoy watching him. I don't like the manner in which he won fights. And I don't think he's as skilled as most people claim he was.

When he fought tough competition, win or lose, he looked like shit because all he did was hang all over his opponent and sap their strength.

If he'd not been allowed to hold against Chavez there's no doubt in my mind he would've lost decisively. And that's true of many of his victories.

He's so stinky in the ring there's smog floating above during his fights, obscuring the fact that he's not beating anyone, he's holding, grappling and illegally in desperation trying not to be hit.

Let me ask you this: if he was such a defensive wizard then why did he resort to holding so much? I think we can both agree that excessive holding is an indication of a fighter's defensive liabilities. So how do you reconcile his excessive holding with his purported defensive wizardy?

Good defense ^= Excessive holding and grappling.

An example of a good defensive fighter is PBF. Or Toney. Or Benitez. These guys aren't tying up their opponents up every 10 seconds. They're parrying punches, moving their heads, and using foot-work to get out of harm's way.

 

This is the perfect truth right here:bears:

I dont think you have to be a fan of Pernell Whitaker to accept this entire post as 100% accurate

 

This whole post is just one big pile of made-up nonsense

Nothing is going to change your mind, not even the fact that everybody else can clearly see what was actually happening in the ring and you are unable/unwilling to.

The last sentence where you praise PBF and Toney is especially hilarious, because you went on a tirade claiming that the main component of both fighter's defensive games (THE SHOUDLER ROLL) is, in your opinion, ILLEGAL!!!!

Now you turn around and praise those guys as defensive geniuses

Unbelievable!!!

 

Hmmm...have you ever seen this fight?

<object width="425" height="344">


<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/CWh0lVaE1A0&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></object>


Is this a fighter who was trying to "not lose"? I see a fighter who worked the body, landed meaningful punches and was most definitely FIGHTING TO WIN. Whitaker didn't lay down the imaginary "stink" that you talk about so often.

Now I know this isn't the entire fight...before you try to hide behind that...but it shows many sequences in which Whitaker was the OPPOSITE of what you claim he is. And...it came against a dangerous opponent who COULD punch and would go on to win a title at 140 not too long after this fight.

Now before you exaggerate and try to make it sound like I am claiming that Whitaker was the second coming of Aaron Pryor or Mike Tyson when it comes to fighting aggressively...I'm not suggesting any such thing. But...I think your blanket statement of Whitaker being nothing more than a hold-hit-run-repeat fighter is both inaccurate and far too simplistic. Whitaker's game was multi-faceted and you are either too blind or too stubborn to get that.

 

After reading this headline, it just seemed natural to post it in this thread.

 

And I am proof of this, that post is 100% agreed.
I'm not in anyway a Whitaker fan, but you have to give the guy his due, the man was absolutely great at what he did. Truly magnificent.

 

So Double, what happened to this?? Just another one of your not properly thought-through bullshit blanket statements??

And the only fights he (Whitaker) didn't exhibit complete stink in were either against guys smaller than him or guys who couldn't punch.

 

You're mistaking me with someone else. I've never denounced the shoulder roll as a legitimate defensive move.

 

Yeah, but in this topic you criticize Whitaker for "excessive holding" (which is bullshit...but going there is a little off-topic) and you praise Mayweather as being a good defensive fighter.

But in the Shoulder Roll topic, you criticize Mayweather and claim his defensive tactics should be considered in the same category as pulling an opponent's head down. In the quote below...it sure doesn't sound like you consider Mayweather a good defensive fighter...it sounds like you are criticizing him for doing something he shouldn't be allowed to do.

 

uh, there's a difference between a fighter's rolling his shoulders (ala Toney or Jersey Joe) and flat out exposing his back to his opponent leaving virtually nowhere for him to hit without commiting a foul. I don't use the term shoulder roll once in the quote you've provided. I'm simply objecting to PBF's turning his back when he's trapped and doesn't have his opponents offensive rythm figured out.

 

My father sat ringside at Whitaker vs Chavez. My father at the time was a big time Chavez fan. Till this day, he will tell you Chavez easily lost the fight.

 

Hello...Double L???

 

Yeah. What do you want? I don't like the way Whitaker fights. That's all I have to say. If you disagree with my characterization of his style of fighting as that of a fighter who fights not to lose, as opposed to that of one who fights to win, then we'll have to agree to disagree.

But there is at least circumstantial evidence to support my characterization and that is all of the so-called "robberies" he's had in his career. Do you think judges are just out to get him? An Olympic Gold Medalist? Or do you think perhaps it has something to do with his anemic offense and boring style that persuades the judges to give it to the other guy - the guy who is trying to win; trying to work his way through Whitaker's maze of wrestling and holding that Whitaker claims to be, "boxing," in order to do damage and win the fight.

Trinidad/Whitaker is one of my favorite fights to watch because shot or not, Whitaker's grappling and dirty tactics were entirely neutralized by Trinidad's use of distance. And the result? Whitaker, the defensive whiz that he is, getting his ass handed to him. :laughing: