Jr Welterweights: Wilfred Benitez vs Pernell Whitaker

elmersalsa · Post by **elmersalsa** » 15 Sep 2006, 16:07

Who wins in this fight between two master boxers?

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 15 Sep 2006, 18:55

Pernell

vagabundo55 · Post by **vagabundo55** » 15 Sep 2006, 23:44

Hard one to pick, i'll go with Benitez (i'll admit i'm slightly biased) because he was a bit bigger, and in his prime he was definetely a great fighter. Well actually I don't know. this is almost a pick em, i'd probably actually slightly favor Whitaker now that I think about it. I believe Cervantes might have beat Benitez in a rematch, so I think I'll change and say Whitaker by UD. It wouldn't suprise me if it went Benitez's way though, in 4 fights i'd say Whitaker wins 3 out of those 4. This got me wondering about Leonard vs Whitaker though. I'd say Leonard for that.

elmersalsa · Post by **elmersalsa** » 18 Sep 2006, 16:15

I think Pernell could have beaten any great welter or jr welter or lightweight in history, including Sugar Ray Robinson.

Jorge · Post by **Jorge** » 21 Sep 2006, 02:38

Your talking about 2 of the best defensive fighters in history. If two negatives makes a postitive than it would surely become a slugfest.

birddog · Post by **birddog** » 22 Sep 2006, 23:56

would have been a snoozefest for most fans as both were counterpunchers and defensive greats.

For hardcore boxing addicts who could stay awake, a tactical masterpiece to behold.

fight would have to be at 140 I guess, assuming both in their primes.

Who wins I have to idea but would love to see this chess match. maybe no one hits the other with anything substantial over 12 or 15.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 04 Sep 2007, 11:09

Just thinking about this one last night...

Don't know where to start on who would win.

theone · Post by **theone** » 04 Sep 2007, 11:47

Whitaker at Jr.Welter; Benitez at Welter. Both close UD.

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 04 Sep 2007, 14:12

I would say Whitaker by a close decision. It would be interesting to see how their styles would mesh.

I think Whitaker is probably the best fighter of the last 20 years, but he does not beat Robinson.

ringsider · Post by **ringsider** » 05 Sep 2007, 02:24

I think Whitaker is probably the best fighter of the last 20 years,

Now that is funny.

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 05 Sep 2007, 02:37

ringsider wrote:
I think Whitaker is probably the best fighter of the last 20 years,
Now that is funny.

I'm not laughing.

I'll have to ask you who your choice is. I'm quite sure I won't be impressed.

markl · Post by **markl** » 05 Sep 2007, 07:47

Whitaker wins this at any weight. People gloss over the fact that Pea was a very active fighter. He threw a lot of punches. That activity would be too much for Wilfred in a fight where both men miss far more then they land.

8-4 or 9-6 ish

ringsider · Post by **ringsider** » 05 Sep 2007, 13:10

It is funny. If you can not see that, that is just sad. :(

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 05 Sep 2007, 13:12

I'm waiting for an inteligent reply from you. Put your cards on the table or fornicate off.

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 05 Sep 2007, 13:52

What a little punk.

Whitaker got a couple of bad decisions in his career that might have elevated him in the public perception if he had gotten them, but he didn't get all the little breaks Oscar and some others got. You can disagree, but these little snide remarks without actually giving a legitimate argument for another fighter is not going to stand. Name another fighter, or keep it to yourself.

ringsider · Post by **ringsider** » 05 Sep 2007, 15:59

Shudda up. He was a slapsy southpaw, a runaway safety first fighter, who could not crack an egg. Roger Mayweather had him on the deck. Wise up dumbo....

Benitez beats him everytime at every weight.

Greatest of the last 20 years.....maybe in fantasyland, which is obviously where you are residing.

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 05 Sep 2007, 16:06

ringsider wrote:Shudda up. He was a slapsy southpaw, a runaway safety first fighter, who could not crack an egg. Roger Mayweather had him on the deck. Wise up dumbo....

Greatest of the last 20 years.....maybe in fantasyland, which is obviously where you are residing.

Yeah, except he dominated two weight classes, won titles in four, beat Chavez who is himself a candidate for best fighter of the last 20 years, should have beat Oscar as well who is another candidate. You can take your little punk attitude and shove it. Stupid little b-tch. Willie Pep was a safety first figher, I guess he's not a great fighter? Come back to me when you learn something about boxing.

markl · Post by **markl** » 05 Sep 2007, 16:18

Whitaker was easily the best fighter of the last 20 years

Jones,Hopkins,Holyfield are really the only ones you could objectively put up against him and they all fall short.

ringsider · Post by **ringsider** » 06 Sep 2007, 01:21

What delusional rubbish you guys spew.

Whitaker never fought near the caliber of fighters that Benitez fought. Whitaker was not as slick as Benitez in boxing ability in his prime at LW or WW. To say "Sweet Pea" dominated 2 divisions is a bit of a stretch isn't it?

Who really did he ever fight? Who? His opposition was past their prime. Most could not even name the names of most of his title fight opponents. Who? He was the king of nobody land.

Over rated slapsy south paw.....

Benitez fought guys like:
Cervantes, Palamino, Sugar Ray Leonard, Roberto Duran, Thomas Hearns, Hamsho, Davey Moore, Harold Weston. 8) 8)

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 06 Sep 2007, 01:57

I hardly dismissed the idea of Benitez winning, though I'm leaning towards Whitaker. I don't think anyone would be surprised if Benitez won. Bringing up Benitez' opponents in an attempt to shame Whitaker is stupid, if there's one thing you can't criticize either of these fighters for its their willingless to fight the best... if Whitaker had been in Benitez's era he would have fought the same guys Benitez did and vice versa. That's basically the equivalent of criticizing Holyfield because he fought Bowe and Tyson and not Ali and Frazier... he sort of had no control over that.

There isn't one contender I can think of in the Lightweight division of his time who Whitaker didn't beat, along with becoming undisputed champion. Hell, I've seen some people rank Whitaker as a top five all time Lightweight. Dismissing his Lightweight title reign is retarded. The Welterweight division didn't have quite the same level of names, but he defended his Welterweight title 9 times and fought whoever was around. Pretty much everyone who I've ever encountered who has seen the fight thought Whitaker beat prime De La Hoya, who would be considered a great 90's Welterweight. Whitaker also tried to get a unification with Trinidad, but Trinidad ducked him until he was an old drug addict.. and even then he couldn't KO him. I doubt Trinidad would have beaten a younger Whitaker. And then there's the belts Whitaker won at 140, and at 154 against Vasquez who had something like 12 title defenses and had beaten a young Wright and a young Castillejo... obviously they would be much better in later years, but still an interesting footnote. Whitaker's win (acknowledging the draw would be stupid) over Chavez was pretty definitive, and I'm sure many would argue for Chavez as the best fighter of the last 20 years. Whitaker's list of opponents is certainly better than Jones, Hopkins or Mayweather's.

There were many fighters who fought in the past 20 years who I enjoyed watching more than Whitaker... but to deny that he is in the conversation as possibly the best of the last 20 years is ignorant. Only shallow boxing fans rank fighters based on styles... you must be one of those hardcore Gatti fans.

Keep up the dumb arguments and the faggot emoticons... they're really working well for you.

markl · Post by **markl** » 06 Sep 2007, 03:12

That was handled nicely.

theone · Post by **theone** » 06 Sep 2007, 06:53

Cervantes, Palamino, Sugar Ray Leonard, Roberto Duran, Thomas Hearns, Hamsho, Davey Moore, Harold Weston

Are you aware that Benitez lost to 4 of the guys you mentioned? Two of them quite brutally? Whats the point of bringing them up? Weston? You must have added his name for filler I assume. Whitaker fought a ton of guys better than him.

ringsider · Post by **ringsider** » 07 Sep 2007, 00:37

That is the point, everyone of those guys would have beaten Whitaker. They were a better class of opposition than Whitaker's. Not to mention Benitez would have beaten him too.

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 07 Sep 2007, 11:08

birddog wrote:would have been a snoozefest for most fans as both were counterpunchers and defensive greats.

For hardcore boxing addicts who could stay awake, a tactical masterpiece to behold.

fight would have to be at 140 I guess, assuming both in their primes.

Who wins I have to idea but would love to see this chess match. maybe no one hits the other with anything substantial over 12 or 15.

I agree, this would be a boring fight but tactically fascinating.

I see Whitaker outlanding Benitez but Benitez landing a fair number of hard counters and certainly the harder sharper punches.

In the end it would be "what do you think was more effective" . . .I see the judges siding with Benitez.

The more I re-watch Whitaker, he was a great fighter but really did not have the resume to put him up with the top PFP greats like many do. Chavez was slipping by the time Whitaker got him. Ramirez and McGirt were very good fighters but not in the calibre of who Benitez fought. And Pea really stunk out the joint vs Nelson, arguably his best opponent along with Chavez.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 07 Sep 2007, 11:21

I agree that this would be a difficult bout to score.

Despite Benitez losing to Leonard and Hearns he managed 27 rounds with them (almost). I'm not sure Whittaker would have managed that.

Benitez has a size advantage too. I'm not sure how much difference that would make in this fight though seeings as defence will be the watchword of the fight.

Either man could win but I'm starting to favour Benitez.