BoxRec

dempseyfire wrote:

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.

I get so sick of the Chavez was sliding. Like in hindsight, Tyson was shot against the huge underdog Holyfield.

Whitaker had seen his better days as well. Chavez was the p4p king of the sport and favored to pound Pea into the ground.

They could have fought 50 times in different weights and years and Whitaker would have schooled him every time.

I suppose Whitaker can be faulted for not moving up to Light Heavyweight to fight Hearns. Not sure what he was thinking.

Seriously speaking, Whitaker hardly fought in a weak era, and he fought who he was supposed to fight. Not sure what he could have been expected to have done more in terms of resume. His resume was better than most if not all of the other 90's fighters.

Chavez had just beaten Haugen that same year, one of his more dominant performances, and didn't show an inkling of being a shot fighter. Still, I don't see how he ever beats Whitaker based on that performance, whether he was slipping or not.

And, again, I really wouldn't be surprised either way if Benitez and Whitaker fought. Benitez might very well win, but Whitaker's resume is hardly the reason.

The Pernell Whitaker that took the 154 -pound title from Julio Cesar Vasquez would have also BEAT the Duran that lost to Benitez at 154 pounds 8) 8)

theone wrote:

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.

And what do you think would've happened if Whitaker fought them?
Leonard, Hearns, and Duran are in a different class level for me A+
Cervantes Class B+ or A-
Palomino Class B
Hamsho Class B-

Best fighters:
Chavez is for me class A- solid win by Pernell, but I think Benitez win over Duran is more impressive.
Nelson is for me class A- another solid win by Pernell

So they have both at least two solid wins and I think Benitez was better in the offense department and the slight edge in defense goes to Pernell.

I pick Benitez by a close SD.

He losses to Leonard, Hearns and possibly Hamsho, who would be too big. Whitaker beats the rest.

I think Benitez via close MD he was bigger hit harder and his style seemed more effective for the judges who never seemed to like Pernell's style.

Borinken25 wrote:

theone wrote:

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.

Best fighters:
Chavez is for me class A- solid win by Pernell, but I think Benitez win over Duran is more impressive.

I do not know what this guy is talking about...Nationalism can bring people to pieces. Pernell Whitaker performance against the one's favorite fighter (Chavez) was wwaaaayyyy better than beating a washed up Duran.

how about if they both fought when they were 17 or even 18 benitez would win hands down hahahahaha i dnt have a piont about that just think winning a world title at 17 is a real feat. i have only seen a little bit of whittaker and not much more of benitez but i think benitez would have the edge in power but wouldnt make a bug difference and would be a boring fight although tactically brilliant

Borinken25 wrote:

theone wrote:

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.

And what do you think would've happened if Whitaker fought them?
Leonard, Hearns, and Duran are in a different class level for me A+
Cervantes Class B+ or A-
Palomino Class B
Hamsho Class B-

Best fighters:
Chavez is for me class A- solid win by Pernell, but I think Benitez win over Duran is more impressive.
Nelson is for me class A- another solid win by Pernell

So they have both at least two solid wins and I think Benitez was better in the offense department and the slight edge in defense goes to Pernell.

I pick Benitez by a close SD.

Problem with these gradings is size. Hamsho might have been a B- MW but for a guy who started his career at 135 he's a whole different proposition.

Nelson and Chavez started off in lighter divisions than Whittaker so are not quite A- fighters for a man naturally bigger.

This is a tough one for me & I haven't voted with 100% conviction.

I am going for Whittaker to edge it.

I have used simple logic; Benitez was stopped by SRL & schooled by Tommy Hearns in his prime; OK, they were 2 of the greatest fighters in history, but I simply cannot see ANY fighter in history stopping or schooling (winning on points, yes) a prime Whittaker, so on that basis I'm going with Pernell.

Yes, style makes fights & you can throw any number of other cliches my way, but that is the only way I can separate these 2 in a prime mythical battle.

This is the kind of match up where it's very easy to accept someone predicting a different winner than to the one you selected.

elmersalsa wrote:

Borinken25 wrote:

theone wrote: 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.

Best fighters:
Chavez is for me class A- solid win by Pernell, but I think Benitez win over Duran is more impressive.

I do not know what this guy is talking about...Nationalism can bring people to pieces. Pernell Whitaker performance against the one's favorite fighter (Chavez) was wwaaaayyyy better than beating a washed up Duran.

Benitez would've defeated Duran at any point in their careers.
The same old excuse that Duran was washed up and yet he went on to put a one side beating on Moore and Cuevas. Have a competitive fight against Hagler and even defeating Barkley. Yes he was washed up
Accepted Duran was the better fighter, but Benitez had the perfect style to defeat him and he did end of the story.

Put Benitez in Montreal instead of Leonard and he gets dominated and stopped.

Duran wasn't shot. He was well above his natural weight and suspect training combined with age made him inconsistent at higher weights. But ,so was Robinson.

markl wrote:Put Benitez in Montreal instead of Leonard and he gets dominated and stopped.

Duran wasn't shot. He was well above his natural weight and suspect training combined with age made him inconsistent at higher weights. But ,so was Robinson.

Nonsense Sugar Ray Leonard lost that night because he didn't move. he tried to trade with Duran and lost. The rematch Leonard school Duran becuase he was moving and giving Duran angles. Benitez would never stop in front of Duran. Styles makes fights and Benitez just had Duran's number. I'll pick Benitez to win every single time.

Borinken25 wrote:

markl wrote:Put Benitez in Montreal instead of Leonard and he gets dominated and stopped.

Duran wasn't shot. He was well above his natural weight and suspect training combined with age made him inconsistent at higher weights. But ,so was Robinson.

Nonsense Sugar Ray Leonard lost that night because he didn't move. he tried to trade with Duran and lost. The rematch Leonard school Duran becuase he was moving and giving Duran angles. Benitez would never stop in front of Duran. Styles makes fights and Benitez just had Duran's number. I'll pick Benitez to win every single time.

You have already made that quite clear. What is nonsense is your assesment of Leonard/Duran 1. Duran forced him to slug. That Duran was impossible to move against.

Not only does Benitez lose, but it isn't even close.

The rematch was a close fight. Leonard did what he had to do and made him quit. But it was far from a schooling.

What is nonsense is your assesment of Leonard/Duran 1. Duran forced him to slug. That Duran was impossible to move against.

That Duran was the same as the Duran from the second fight. Leonard just fought him on his terms this time. The first fight was ALOT closer than the second one was going to turn out to be if Duran hadn't quit. Duran knew it, thats why he did it.

Not only does Benitez lose, but it isn't even close.

Thinking Duran would have won is one thing, but saying he would beat Benitez easily is utter nonsense. If Duran had deteriorated as much as your implying he did between his first fight with Leonard and his fight with Benitez, he never would have come close to accomplishing what he did later on. If your implying that he lost because the jr middle class wasn't his natural weight, well, it was at that point in his career. Duran had grown into that weight and wouldn't have made lightweight if he tried. Using that logic Jr. Middle wasnt Benitez, "natural" weight either.

I am not implying anything like that. I am stating that the Duran from Montreal would have run over Benitez like a bus.

The Duran from the Palamino fight would have eaten him alive as well.

The first fight was a much better fight. But if you gave Duran anything less then 9 rounds, you're not objective.

I would always favor Benitez at 54. He was much more consistent at that weight. But Duran would win his share.

40 or 47 Duran wins way more then he loses.

Borinken25 wrote:

elmersalsa wrote:

Borinken25 wrote:

Duran was washed up after the No Mas fight. Heck, HE LOOKED TERRIBLY AWFUL with Nino Gonzalez and Luigi Minchillo before fighting Benitez. He even LOST TO A NOBODY NAMED KIRKLAND LAING.

That Benitez victory is the only fight that you and your countrymen can rejoice. Beating a man that was not in his complete prime. I wonder if the fight was in 1978??? Outcome??? Different story...Duran by KO.

All those fights of Duran after the "No Mas" were when he was in his 30s and 20 pounds over his natural weight and years from his real prime.

Benitez is a great fighter, but I could not see him beat a Duran of circa 1976-80. He would have eaten Benitez for dinner. I do not take Benitez credit. He fought a good fight that night, but with a Duran that did not have it ever since the "No Mas".

Benitez is a great fighter, but I could not see him beat a Duran of circa 1976-80. He would have eaten Benitez for dinner. I do not take Benitez credit. He fought a good fight that night, but with a Duran that did not have it ever since the "No Mas".

On what exactly do you base this opinion that Duran would have "eaten Benitez for dinner"? What fight did Duran have in his prime where he beat a fighter of Benitez's style and caliber that easily?

I Feel Fine wrote:I suppose Whitaker can be faulted for not moving up to Light Heavyweight to fight Hearns. Not sure what he was thinking.

Seriously speaking, Whitaker hardly fought in a weak era, and he fought who he was supposed to fight. Not sure what he could have been expected to have done more in terms of resume. His resume was better than most if not all of the other 90's fighters.

Chavez had just beaten Haugen that same year, one of his more dominant performances, and didn't show an inkling of being a shot fighter. Still, I don't see how he ever beats Whitaker based on that performance, whether he was slipping or not.

And, again, I really wouldn't be surprised either way if Benitez and Whitaker fought. Benitez might very well win, but Whitaker's resume is hardly the reason.

rinsider just hate southpaw ;) he bash them whenever he can

theone wrote:

Benitez is a great fighter, but I could not see him beat a Duran of circa 1976-80. He would have eaten Benitez for dinner. I do not take Benitez credit. He fought a good fight that night, but with a Duran that did not have it ever since the "No Mas".

On what exactly do you base this opinion that Duran would have "eaten Benitez for dinner"? What fight did Duran have in his prime where he beat a fighter of Benitez's style and caliber that easily?

theone you are 100% correct. Apparently Duran's prime was only from 1973 after his loss to De Jesus and 1980 before his loss to Leonard. He was washed up after that and that is why he lost the rematch to Leonard and that is why he never won a title again. He wants to use the excuse that Duran washed up Style makes fights and Benitez just had the perfect defensive style to defeat Duran at any point in their careers including Montreal. It just like Hearns would've KO Duran at any point in their careers. Duran was a great fighter, but when Leonard uses his movement Duran had no answer for that, and the same with Benitez. Duran couldn't find his target and Benitez made him pay for it. Benitez wins every single time.

LOL

Nationalism is a wonderful thing.

I imagine Trinidad would be too tough for Hearns as well?

markl wrote:LOL

Nationalism is a wonderful thing.

I imagine Trinidad would be too tough for Hearns as well?

What nationalism has to do with this discussion? Facts are facts and Benitez defeated Duran whether you accept it or not. Facts are in the table:
Duran lost to Leonard in the second fight because Leonard use his movement and angles not because Duran was washed up.

Duran lost to Benitez in similar fashion because Benitez use movement and angles and Duran had no answer for that.

If you ask me who the better fighter was, I will tell you straight up Duran. However, I firmly believe that style makes fights and Benitez style was a nightmare for Duran. Benitez win every single time and of course, that is just my opinion and has nothing to do with nationalism. The only ones confusing opinion with nationalism are you and elmesalsa because neither of you can bring up facts and are trying to use nationalism as an excuse.

So the better fighter would have zero chance of ever pulling a rabbitt out of the hat?

It's nothing but bias. I have said on several occasions that Benitez was more consistent and I would always favor him at 54.

You telling me that if Duran faced the 17yr old Benitez at 40 10 times. He would lose them all is pure bias.

Most would give Duran a better chance against Robinson then you give him against Benitez. Wilfred was much more of a pocket defender then a mover anyway.

He was one of my favorites growing up. But he gets beatdown in Montreal. No if's ands or buts.

Edit: Why you keep comparing Benitez and Leonard is odd. Leonard was bigger,faster and stronger then Benitez and Duran abused him 1 out of 3.

markl wrote:So the better fighter would have zero chance of ever pulling a rabbitt out of the hat?

It's nothing but bias. I have said on several occasions that Benitez was more consistent and I would always favor him at 54.

You telling me that if Duran faced the 17yr old Benitez at 40 10 times. He would lose them all is pure bias.

Most would give Duran a better chance against Robinson then you give him against Benitez. Wilfred was much more of a pocket defender then a mover anyway.

He was one of my favorites growing up. But he gets beatdown in Montreal. No if's ands or buts.

Edit: Why you keep comparing Benitez and Leonard is odd. Leonard was bigger,faster and stronger then Benitez and Duran abused him 1 out of 3.

Well you probably you are right and I exaggerated a little bit. Duran would’ve had more than a zero chance, but I firmly believe that Benitez just had Duran’s number. In a five fights series I’ll give Duran 1 out 5 and 2 out 10.

You must have forgotten that Benitez at 17 won his first would title against a great fighter like Cervantes. Granted Cervantes is no Duran, but the style of Benitez was factor that has to be taken into consideration.

Replace Leonard with Hearns and you tell me who would’ve won in Montreal? Of course, there is always if’s and buts.

I didn’t compare Benitez to Leonard. I compare the style that they use to fight Duran of movement and angles. The fight in Montreal was a close fight and if you tell me that was a beat down then you are the one in complete denial and will truly show bias. Again Leonard lost because he fell into Duran’s trap and fought toe to toe. Leonard try to over power Duran and he couldn’t. On the other hand in the rematch Leonard use his boxing skills, movement, and defense and was able to dominate the fight because Duran found no answer to that style. The very same style that Benitez use is his fight against Duran.