lightweights: Pernell Whitaker vs Roberto Duran

[elmersalsa]

Hello folks!!!


I would like your opinion in their primes who would have won this fight. I think that "Sweet Pea" had a chance to win by decision. :TU:

[dempseyfire]

This is the fight which would completly depend on the judges. Do you prefer Whitaker's fancy dan tactics and defensive work, or Duran's agressiveness and hard punches??? Prime for prime, I'd have to edge Duran. Whitaker loved to outspeed his opponents but in the early 70s Duran was one fast cat and he could fire punches all night.

[KOJOE90]

If this was over 15 rounds I would have to give the edge to Roberto Duran, but only just. Pernell Whitaker had the tricky style and speed to send Duran nuts at times, but over the 15 rounds distance I see the relentless pressure ond aggresion of Duran taking a tight points victory.

As a lightweight Duran was something else, as much of a force of nature as a fighter. With the intensity Duran fought with in them days it's easy to forget Duran himself was quick and had a trememdously effective and subtle defence and was a wonderfull counterpuncher. These tools I believe would allow him to have the beating of Pernell Whitaker.

[jsc1973]

It's a close fight based on the skills of the two men, but you're comparing a cannon (Duran) to a pop gun (Whitaker). Whitaker wouldn't be able to avoid getting hit by the young Duran, who was as quick as he was. Duran by late TKO.

[Eric the Viking]

http://www.boxrec.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=14731

[tonyevs]

did he not struggle some with Ken Buchanan?
How would he cope with an elusive and far more slippery Whitaker.
I tend to think another Ray Leonard2.

[elmersalsa]

did he not struggle some with Ken Buchanan?
How would he cope with an elusive and far more slippery Whitaker.
I tend to think another Ray Leonard2.

Well, of what I have seen of that fight (Duran-Buchanan), Buchanan was getting a hell of a beating if you ask me. But Buchanan like a great champion was coming back but I think if the fight would have last the distance he would have lost by far anyway. Duran that night was a RAW BOXING FIGHTING MACHINE!!! Too bad we did not see a rematch. I think probably Buchanan would have come more prepared.

Probably Whitaker would have frustrate Duran. Also I think this master would have give problems to any welterweight fighter in history, including the greatest: Sugar Ray Robinson!!!

I wouldn't be surprised if Whitaker wins against the greats like Griffith, Gavilan, Basilio, Benitez, Leonard, Hearns and Mantequilla Napoles.
8) 8) 8) 8) 8)

[IronKidDynamite]

I think Pernell. This is not a popular decision because of the Duran legend, but I think technically it is good.

I think ring generalship would decide this. Duran beat Buchanan, but Buchanan was a different fighter totally than Whitaker. Buchanan was a in and out stick and move jabber, which worked against boxers but not against aggressor Duran.

The best guys Ken beat were Laguna, Ortiz and Watt. Watt was hardly an extreme aggressor no arguments about that. Ortiz was a technical boxer and Laguna had a similar style like Buchanan. So Buchanan was good against fellow boxers, not guys like Duran.

Unlike Whitaker who outlanded the aggressive Chavez and since he outlanded him in more rounds than Chavez did him, he should have won(don't believe this "aggressive" BS by judges).

Dejesus gave him trouble in both the first two fights, the second one Duran one but not by much, Dejesus was giving him a lot of trouble. Technically Dejesus was no Whitaker, he's supposedly underrated but I don't think so.

Whitaker was excellent at nullifying guys who cut off the ring, and counterpunching them with light flurries. I pick Whitaker.