Posted: 30 Mar 2008, 01:13
No, he wasn't at his peak.His technical skills and especially defence improved considerably by the mid to late 70s.Goodnight, Irene wrote:Puh-lease, broham 8)Diamond WEAPON wrote:Whitaker is overrated, he drew against a past-prime and blown up Chavez who was COMING UP in weight. Duran was in his prime as a LW all the way until the 2nd Leonard fight, then he started slipping. Duran would've given him a pounding.
I assume you haven't seen the Chavez & Ramirez fights of Whitaker's, or at least I do hope you haven't, because both were appalling decisions. Once you sit down & watch these, you'll see a pair of straight-forward Whitaker victories, so you really can't cite those if you are going to argue against him. "No Way, Jose" (it wasn't a reference to Ramirez, either, if that's what you're assuming) during the return with Ramirez might ring a bell with some members here.
Likewise, no excuses for Duran against DeJesus. Duran did not, "develope more" later, he was at his peak, & just wasn't good enough. Hey, it was one night, & Duran later avenged the loss, twice. Good on him. However, DeJesus beat a prime Duran, no two ways about that.
If anything, Duran is the oversold fighter who has abilities bestowed upon him he either didn't possess, or didn't to the extent of which they are spoken of. Whitaker is hardly discussed at all next to how often Duran is (& Duran's status, like Ali's, is overblown, as brilliant as each of them were). Whitaker'd just be plain too clever for Duran. DeJesus was a great fighter, but not in Whitaker's league. Benitez was a great fighter, though not in Whitaker's league, either.
This much, & one thing more. At no weight or age does Chavez ever beat Whitaker.
That said, he was already a great fighter by the Buchanan bout.
Whitaker is discussed plenty.He gets far more mentions than a lot of other excellent pure boxers like Canto, Zapata and Locche.
