Pernell Whitaker: The undefined champion

[TheOneIsHere2008]

To watch Pernell Whitaker perform in the ring left everyone -- fans, press and opponents alike -- to speculate on the meaning of what they'd just seen. For his was an ambiguous style, his motions giving off ineluctable lies.


It was a style that could be described expansively but never plausibly, because nothing about it was plausible. And no single description could adequately describe it. To some, it was a form of fistic break dancing. To others, that of a three-card monte player, a now-you-see-him-now-you-don't style. And to still others, that of fun-house mirror, a style which enabled him to run and hide at one and the same time. (Or, as Whitaker himself once said, "I don't care who I'm fighting. I don't care if it's God. If I don't want God to hit me, He's not going to hit me.") In short, his Turkish bazaar of moves and motions made him one part magician, one part mechanic and one part contortionist who had just come into his own



http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/boxing ... id=2786103

[BoxBuzz]

I'm not sure in my lifetime that I have seen anyone as purely talented as Whitaker. Not sure he could beat Duran even with that talent though. But for pure elegance and style...He's just the David Copperfield of boxing.

And that particular decision may literally be the numbest/stupidest/most idiotic decision in the history of boxing. I just don't see a draw in that fight anywhere. That was more of a gift to Chavez than the gift Steele gave him with Taylor.

Or....is there something I'm missing here? I truly like Chavez and I don't think I'm just showing "Whitaker Bias". So if someone can take the high road and tell me why this was a draw I will read their contribution without prejudice. I'm just going to hope in advance that it's not the simplistic....who's moving forward vs who's moving back explanation. Because that's just the elementary school lunacy that probably created this disaster of a decision in the first place.

I got one question for you. Outside of the thumbed eye.....which fighter do you want to be when the last bell rings? Who do you think went to a party feeling pretty human...and who do you think went out that night feeling like he had a pretty bad day on the job?

[elmersalsa]

Pernell Whitaker was the greatest fighter of his time...The 1990s.

He kicked the great Julio Cesar Chavez ass

[Aftermath]

Pernell Whitaker was a lame, boring, whiney cry-baby who was booed in nearly all of his fights. When he found himself in tough fights against Mayweather he resorted to pulling down his shorts, against Chavez he threw low blows and against de la Hoya he tackled him. Against Trinidad, Pernell sat down cowering in a corner to avoid getting hit by Tito.

The crowds knew what they saw. Against Anthony Jones (who wasn’t a KO artist) Pernell turned his back and literally ran from Jones. I don’t recall Willie Pep or Joe Louis ever doing that. Pernell stunk out the place so bad that he wound up fighting in an empty arena because everybody got up and walked out.

[TheOneIsHere2008]

Pernell Whitaker was a lame, boring, whiney cry-baby who was booed in nearly all of his fights. When he found himself in tough fights against Mayweather he resorted to pulling down his shorts, against Chavez he threw low blows and against de la Hoya he tackled him. Against Trinidad, Pernell sat down cowering in a corner to avoid getting hit by Tito.

The crowds knew what they saw. Against Anthony Jones (who wasn’t a KO artist) Pernell turned his back and literally ran from Jones. I don’t recall Willie Pep or Joe Louis ever doing that. Pernell stunk out the place so bad that he wound up fighting in an empty arena because everybody got up and walked out.

Ring Magazine has him at #10 of all time of all weight classes:


http://forum.boxrec.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=86363

[Aftermath]

Lists are always debated, but the fact remains that Pernell stunk out the place against Jones and was regularly booed loudly for his aweful and lame tactics.

[elmersalsa]

Lists are always debated, but the fact remains that Pernell stunk out the place against Jones and was regularly booed loudly for his aweful and lame tactics.

You probably do not like MASTER BOXERS. The great Pernell Whitaker was #1 in boxing cleverness in his time.

[Diamond WEAPON]

Too many people nowadays overrate Whitaker to such an extreme degree it makes me nearly homicidal. Whitaker was a great fighter no doubt but people act like he was impossible to hit and was better than he really was. He was more of a spoiler than anything, making his opponents look bad rather than making himself look good. He drew with an undersized and aging Chavez in what was really a pretty close fight despite what people like to reenvision as a domination because Chavez was never really discouraged from going after Sweet Pea (much like Margarito against a constantly moving Cotto) and did land a little bit, each time sending Whitaker away while even when Sweet Pea landed cleanly JCC wasn't fazed. Even past prime he had enough to make DLH look a bit robotic at times but he still deserved to lose that fight.

Also, as far as evasiveness goes, Roy Jones Jr., Juan Diaz, and Floyd Mayweather have all been hit at lower percentages than Whitaker on average according to compubox.

[Aftermath]

I admire and enjoy watching the fights of a lot of the master boxers such as as Willie Pep and a prime 1960s Ali, but I agree with the above post of people overrating Pernell.

The simple fact remains that Whitaker stunk out many fights and was booed loudly for it.

[My2Sense]

Too many people nowadays overrate Whitaker to such an extreme degree it makes me nearly homicidal. Whitaker was a great fighter no doubt but people act like he was impossible to hit and was better than he really was. He was more of a spoiler than anything, making his opponents look bad rather than making himself look good. He drew with an undersized and aging Chavez in what was really a pretty close fight despite what people like to reenvision as a domination because Chavez was never really discouraged from going after Sweet Pea (much like Margarito against a constantly moving Cotto) and did land a little bit, each time sending Whitaker away while even when Sweet Pea landed cleanly JCC wasn't fazed. Even past prime he had enough to make DLH look a bit robotic at times but he still deserved to lose that fight.

I pretty much agree with all of this. I thought he beat Chavez, but only by a slight margin, not by a domination like so many Whitaker fans and "boxing purists" try to make that out to be. And he was only able to stay in with DLH and Tito by simply being an awkward stinker, but he lost both fights fair and square, and IMO never really stepped out and tried to win either one, he was just in there to go the distance and make his opponent look bad (similar to Hopkins against Taylor and Calzaghe).

I do feel he was great as a lightweight, where he was more aggressive and threw a lot more punches, but above 135 pounds he is somewhat overrated IMO.

[My2Sense]

Pernell Whitaker was a lame, boring, whiney cry-baby who was booed in nearly all of his fights. When he found himself in tough fights against Mayweather he resorted to pulling down his shorts, against Chavez he threw low blows and against de la Hoya he tackled him. Against Trinidad, Pernell sat down cowering in a corner to avoid getting hit by Tito.

Although I don't quite agree with the extremity of this post, there are some valid points here, particularly the parts I highlighted. I've seen other fighters (ie: Jimmy Young, Zahir Raheem) use the same kinds of "tactics" to survive fights, and people widely criticized them for being "stinkers", "quitters", or likewise. But when Whitaker pulled similar moves, he was described as a "master boxer". IMO, that is a definite double standard.

Also, that deep crouching, squatting tactic he often used is technically illegal, as there are rules about crouching below your opponent's groin area, but it's not something that is rigorously enforced.

[Ambling Alp]

I guess I have mixed feelings here. Defense is part of boxing and should be appreciated. However, I can't say I enjoyed watching Whitaker. I mean, you want to see some offense. In a typical Whitaker round, he got hit barely at all, but it's not like his opponent was usually getting hit much more. Usually, there were no punches landed (by Whitaker or his opponent) that were very damaging.

There are other fighters that were almost as good as Whitaker defensively, but because they were willing to throw punches themselves, they were hit more often than Whitaker. If they wanted to fight like Whitaker, they probably could have.

It's funny, but hardly anyone ever talks about his fights with Buddy McGirt. At the time, they were considered pretty big fights. I thought McGirt gave him a lot of trouble (though the decisions were correct.) Watching those fights and his other big fights, I always thought I was watching a great fighter, but not a legend.

[Flump]

Too many people nowadays overrate Whitaker to such an extreme degree it makes me nearly homicidal. Whitaker was a great fighter no doubt but people act like he was impossible to hit and was better than he really was. He was more of a spoiler than anything, making his opponents look bad rather than making himself look good. He drew with an undersized and aging Chavez in what was really a pretty close fight despite what people like to reenvision as a domination because Chavez was never really discouraged from going after Sweet Pea (much like Margarito against a constantly moving Cotto) and did land a little bit, each time sending Whitaker away while even when Sweet Pea landed cleanly JCC wasn't fazed. Even past prime he had enough to make DLH look a bit robotic at times but he still deserved to lose that fight.

Also, as far as evasiveness goes, Roy Jones Jr., Juan Diaz, and Floyd Mayweather have all been hit at lower percentages than Whitaker on average according to compubox.

Whittaker was one of the greatest fighters of the late 80's and 90's but he certainly wasn't fun to watch in a Gatti way but I certainly rate him higher that Roy Jones, who spent most of his career acting like he couldn't be bothered with boxing (and that was sometimes during his fights), and now he's faded he's suddenly interested again.

As for the Chavez fight, Whittaker beat him handily, he didn't have to discourage Chavez with power, he was too quick. That night Chavez couldn't hit Whittaker with a banjo, it was a poor decision. And I should point out that I wanted Chavez to bust the limbo dancing bastard up, but he didn't and you can't deny his genius.

As regards compubox, who gives a shit? Compubox says little about the quality of a punch or the standard of opposition, I never take any notice of it.

[My2Sense]

In a typical Whitaker round, he got hit barely at all, but it's not like his opponent was usually getting hit much more. Usually, there were no punches landed (by Whitaker or his opponent) that were very damaging.

There are other fighters that were almost as good as Whitaker defensively, but because they were willing to throw punches themselves, they were hit more often than Whitaker. If they wanted to fight like Whitaker, they probably could have.

That's somewhat similar to how I always felt about him. People bitch and bitch to high heaven about how he was "robbed" in his non-wins against Ramirez, Chavez, and DeLaHoya, but at the same time, Whitaker did not go the extra step in those fights and look to win them decisively. IMO, he has himself to blame as much as anyone for not getting those decisions. He let all those fights be close fights and left them in the hands of the judges. In fact, I thought he let both Chavez and DeLaHoya outwork him in the closing round of both fights, at a time when Whitaker looked to be the much fresher fighter. IMO, that's inexcusable. It's as if he was content to do just enough to show that he was "better", and equated that with winning the fight. And personally, I thought DLH beat him fair and square, without question.

[elmersalsa]

Aftermath, Mytwosense and Diamond Weapon probably may need glasses. Whitaker EXTREMELY SCHOOLED CHAVEZ. He made him look like an idiot and that was about it.

It was the greatest performance that I have seen in 30 years watching two guys going at it....Pernell Whitaker was a MASTER.

[elmersalsa]

In a typical Whitaker round, he got hit barely at all, but it's not like his opponent was usually getting hit much more. Usually, there were no punches landed (by Whitaker or his opponent) that were very damaging.

There are other fighters that were almost as good as Whitaker defensively, but because they were willing to throw punches themselves, they were hit more often than Whitaker. If they wanted to fight like Whitaker, they probably could have.

That's somewhat similar to how I always felt about him. People bitch and bitch to high heaven about how he was "robbed" in his non-wins against Ramirez, Chavez, and DeLaHoya, but at the same time, Whitaker did not go the extra step in those fights and look to win them decisively. IMO, he has himself to blame as much as anyone for not getting those decisions. He let all those fights be close fights and left them in the hands of the judges. In fact, I thought he let both Chavez and DeLaHoya outwork him in the closing round of both fights, at a time when Whitaker looked to be the much fresher fighter. IMO, that's inexcusable. It's as if he was content to do just enough to show that he was "better", and equated that with winning the fight. And personally, I thought DLH beat him fair and square, without question.

I agree with you on the DLH fight, but the Ramirez (I and II) and Chavez fights were STRICTLY HIGHWAY ROBBERIES.