Feather-fisted Brilliance

Off the top of your heads, what boxers in history have had extraordinary careers despite having a severe lack of punching power?

Does Sven Ottke qualify?

Or Virgil Hill?

Who comes to mind?

 

Pernel Whitaker is the most obvious one that springs to mind. Seriously that guy couldn't punch for shit, in the scheme of things. I doubt he punched much harder than Jaws.

 

::

 

Although i wouldn't call it an "extraordinary" career Johnny Tapia was a very light hitter that did very well.

Also Chris Byrd won a title at heavyweight and couldn't crack an egg.

 

Willie Pep

Winky Wright

 

Laguna comes to mind. He's known to have not been much of a puncher.

I guess I consider an extraordinary career as one in which a title or titles were won and defended several times against good competition. I don't think a fighter needs to have had a career like SRR or Armstrong to be considered extraordinary. At least not in my mind.

Another guy who comes to mind was Kalambay. But that may be pushing even my liberal definition of extraordinary. Still, it seems like there's a lot of respect on this board for Kalambay.

I think Tapia is a good example. He was legitimately great as a junior bantam-weight.

You could almost make the case for Ali as well. He had average punching power - I guess you couldn't call him feather-fisted. But especially later in his career when he wasn't as fast he had a hard time staying off the ropes (i.e. getting his opponent's respect).

 

Maxie Rosenbloom and Willie Pep...end thread...haha
But for the people that say Winky Wright or Whitaker...eh...they had respectful enough power to keep ya honest... they just never initaited enough to get the KO alot of the times.

 

Ali doesn't belong in a topic of feather-fisted fighters. :doh:

 

Ivan Calderon. Two division champ. Undefeated in 32 fights with ONLY 6 KOs!!!

 

::

 

So you think so? Do you really think Ali rates with guys like Howard Davis Jr., Chris Byrd, Maxie Rosenbloom, etc?? I don't.

There is a difference between having middle of the road power and being a feather-fist.

 

Sammy Serano

 

Good call. :bears: Only 17 KOs in 56 bouts! But I will never regard Serrano as having an 'extraordinary career'.

 

Jesus would not approve of your nit-picking. :nono:

 

Ralph Dupas..brilliant boxer that fought all the way from bantamweight to middleweight, finally winning the jr. middleweight title, but couldn't break an egg.

 

agREED...

While Ali Certainly DOESN'T Belong on a "Puncher's List" it's INaccurate to Place him on a "FeatherFisted" List...Ali was Something like 28-0, 22 KO's in his PRE-Exile Days...He was in Danger of LOSING to Ron Lyle & Got the Stoppage, as Well as Stopping Foreman & Frazier...

Ali was CLOSER to Being a "Puncher" than Sweet Pea Whittaker was...


REED:hammert:

 

well i did make the stipulation that it was in his post-exile career, after which he lost a lot of his speed that he didn't seem to have much power.

he stopped Foreman and Frazier strictly on attrition. Clearly, he could punch. And wasn't feather-fisted. But he did have an extraordinary career that did not result primarily from his punching power.

But I agree. It's a mischaracterization to call Ali feather-fisted - but his career does illustrate that punching power isn't a necessary attribute to have an extraordinary career.

 

agREED...

Ali Certainly DIDN'T Win the Bulk of his Fights Based on POWER...


REED:hammert:

 

I always really wanted to see a Tapia-McCullough fight. Woulda been allot of fun, IMO.

 

Juan Diaz is having a nice career with his hands of feathers.

 

Whitaker put a lot of guys on their asses for a guy who was "feather-fisted"

I think his punch was somewhat underrated

surprised no one mentioned Miguel Canto

 

Paul Spadafora

 

True dat, the Hurtado fight for instance is almost enough to make me change my mind on that one. But then, there's allot to be said for speed and timing.

 

When it comes to you, is there any weaknesses or holes in Whitaker's game? My guess is if I were to collect every comment you've made regarding Whitaker, we'd find that according to you he was the perfect boxer without a single weakness or fault.

I just don't see it. More than anything, the guy was a spoiler. He was good at imposing his will on other fighters, and making them miss, but he wasn't the virtuoso you make him out to be and I think anyone who watches three or more of his fights would agree.

In my mind, extensive grappling is not defense. And Whitaker, although he's known as this defensive genius, sure did a lot of that. And yes. He did it at light-weight as well as later in his career.

And then of course there's all of these myths surrounding Whitaker, like his supposed schooling of Nelson, or the worst decision in history being given to him against Ramirez, ODH and Chavez. But anyone who reads about these "robberies" or "schoolings" before watching the fights will be shocked at what they see!!!

Whitaker's problem, and the reason he was supposedly "robbed" so many times, is that he just plain didn't do enough damage to his opponents.

When a fighter's best win comes against the likes of Haugen, you have to question claims that he was one of the best fighters in history.

You want to see Haugen lose decisively? Watch his fight with Chavez. And that win isn't even mentioned in discussions of Chavez's accomplishments.

But when it comes to Whitaker, it's one of his fan's favorite fights to cite as proof that he was some genius fighter. That alone should tell you something.

 

and not a lot to be said for Hurtado's chin. even feather-fisted fighters score knock-outs. when's the last time you saw a guy with a record that had 0 knock-outs on it?

 

No matter how much folks like you and wRONg King try to rewrite history....the decisions in Whitaker-Ramirez I and Whitaker-Chavez were disgraceful. And I didn't read about those fights before I saw them. I don't have an issue with DLH getting the decision against Whitaker...but the lopsided scorecards were off base. And Whitaker was the clear winner against Nelson.

You're trying to make it sound like you're the only person ever to have seen a Whitaker fight and everyone else just read about him in KO Magazine.

And Haugen his best win? Now I am really starting to question how many of Whitaker's fights you have actually seen.

 

A. I didn't say Whitaker didn't beat Nelson; what I did say is that he didn't "school" him or blow him out. It was a closely contested fight even if Whitaker won most of the rounds.

B. Whitaker hardly did shit offensively against Chavez; all he did was neutralize Chavez with holding and grappling. It left the judges no choice.

C. As far as the Ramirez fight, obviously a case could be made for Whitaker's winning but it wasn't a robbery. Fights are judged primarily on clean punching and in that category Ramirez was at least as successful as Whitaker, and did so with harder punches.

This is my opinion. You have yours. You say yourself in your signature that you're, "Fighting the battle against Boxing Ignorance and Historical Revisionists." First of all, I think it's pretty arrogant of you to assume that you're qualified to fight such a battle. Second of all, I think you're contributing to the vert historical revisionism you claim to be "battling." Third of all, by the tone in your every post, I can tell you're a total prick.

 

A. I don't believe that you have watched this fight.

B. I don't believe that you have watched this fight.

C. I don't believe that you have watched this fight.

And yes...I have charged myself with keeping the truth about fighters and their fights alive against folks like you who like to rewrite history against fighters you don't like. EVERY thing you post is either slanted for a fighter you like or against one you don't.

And as for being a prick...take a look in the mirror sometimes. I'm not the one who gets all pissy and bent out of shape and needs to call names. So c'mon...let's see your next anger management case post in response.

And what about Haugen being Whitaker's best win? Don't try to squirm your way out of that one.