BoxRec

Look at some of those names on his record.

He may well have been the most naturally gifted fighters of all time.

Fighting slightly too long - although not compared to a lot of successful fighters - has hurt his standing a little. There is a general perception when he is evaluated in magazines and forums against the welter greats, is that although he was the best of his time, his lack of offensive prowess would cost him against your Leonard's, etc. Part of that perception comes from losing to De La Hoya and Trinadad, even though he was over-the-hill by then.

I personally had him beating DLH, albeit narrowly.

He probably could have stayed at light welter a lot longer but I guess the fights were to be made at 147.

He was brilliant from being a teenager and his reflexes were phenomenal; he had a decent punch on him and seemed to enjoy making the other man miss; when he dropped down he was both unhittable and got extra power form his thighs when he leapt up. He was very tough and strong minded, he was dropped a handful of times through a long career (amateur and pro) and didn't give in - he kept trying to find a way to win. From all accounts he was a good fighter out of the ring and as a teenage amateur would knock out some of the tough sailors that were based in Norfolk, Virginia.

I always thought he was totally overrated. still do.

Pernell v Meldrick Taylor would have been some bout at some stage of their careers.

I see him competitive with anyone from 135—147. I think Duran and Leonard outwork him, but I'd love to see how things would play out against Hearns.

Evander wrote:Look at some of those names on his record.

the only fighter whitaker beat that had a big name was azumah nelson the feather weight ,buddy mcgirt was the best fighter whitaker ever beat i think.but i like mcgirt a lot

klompton wrote:I always thought he was totally overrated. still do.

Clear wins over Chavez, DelaHoya, Nelson and McGirt.

Dominant wins over solid guys like Ramirez x2, Haugen, Mayweather & Pineda.

Gutsy wins over solid guys like Rivera & Hurtado.

His resume leaves him short of the all time top 10, but I think he rates somewhere between 15-35. His opposition compares quite well with someone like Willie Pep.

klompton wrote:I always thought he was totally overrated. still do.

Resume wise or ability wise?

SamWise72 wrote:I see him competitive with anyone from 135—147. I think Duran and Leonard outwork him, but I'd love to see how things would play out against Hearns.

Not good for Pea, he'd have a much better shot against Roberto or Ray. And with his mentality, when he realized he couldn't out-box Tommy he would go for it and things could get pretty ugly.

Whitaker is not beating Hearns. Horrible matchup for him (as Tommy was for most). I don't see him being Leonard either. A fight with Duran at Lightweight is one of those 50/50 matchups that I'll never have a solid opinion on.

I think it'd be interesting to see Tommy against someone need find so hard to hit.

He was a great fighter. The best guy in the 1990s. His record is very good. But his key fights flatter him.

Azumah never won a fight at lightweight. And If Whittaker had got the decision against Chavez (as he should have done) we’d spend more time talking about the fact that Chavez did nothing of any significance at welter. He had an unbeaten record from his days at 130 and 135… He was already looking far less formidable at 140.

Going in I hoped Chavez could win or at least make it competitive but I never really thought he had much of a chance.

His wins over the capable McGirt are very good against the naturally bigger man. And I’ve heard all manner of opinions on the De La Hoya bout but have never sat through it so can’t comment.

There’s nobody who has come along since who I think could beat him at 135. Would have liked to have seen him up against Taylor.

McGirt was also hampered in both fights with a torn rotator cuff (and subsequent surgery which did not rectify it).

I don't really read too much into the weight factor with the Chavez fight. For a start they were both titlists at 140 at the same time and the fight could easily have happened at that poundage, save for the fact that he beat McGirt up at 147 so had to give up one of the titles.

The fight was made at 145, and that suited Chavez as he wanted to be the first Mexican to win world titles at four weights and also one of the few fighters in history to do so.

Also, Whitaker was never what I would call a particularly big welter, always looking slightly pudgy and soft around the middle. Probably could have made 140 with little bother.

He also easily beat long-reigning WBA titlist Vasquez up at 154, who while a bit limited could punch very hard and was as strong as they come. I think he was something like 55-1 at the time he faced him.

i followed pernell as well as all boxers in the late 80's-90's and then had a break till about 5 years ago when i started following boxing again and in that time whitaker had gone from a good world champ to a great champ mentioned with duran and leonard and to me i don't know quite why ,maybe the british press and the american press thought of sweet pea differently but whitaker has gone up in peoples ratings since when he boxed . it's a bit like martinez being mentioned with ray robinson in 20 years time .

I think that while he was actually fighting, he was unlucky to have come along after Hearns, Leonard, and Duran. He wasn't at quite their level and would (and still does) get compared to them.
He had the bad decisions vs Chavez and Ramirez and people naturally feel for a guy that got ripped off.
Ezzard makes a vaild comment that had he just got the decison over Chavez, the topic would be more about how big a deal it was beating Chavez at welterweight since Chavez wasn't that great at welter. Whitaker may have actually benefited in the long run from the bad decision. And as Ezzard also mentioned, Nelson never actually won a fight at lightweight. Still, Whitaker did look good in both fights.
I think his wins over McGirt are overrated. The 2nd fight was especially was competitive and had several close uneventful rounds. Whitaker was not impressive.

He did lose to De La Hoya but probably would have won in their primes. He might have pitched a shutout vs Trinidad in his prime. He also won some fights over not great but good fighters like Haugen.

Overall, he did have a career that is a little hard to evaluate, he was not one the Top 10 ATG, but he was a great fighter; one of the best defensively of all time.

King Carlos wrote:Whitaker is not beating Hearns. Horrible matchup for him (as Tommy was for most). I don't see him being Leonard either. A fight with Duran at Lightweight is one of those 50/50 matchups that I'll never have a solid opinion on.

I wouldn't pick him over any of them, but I agree his best chance is with Duran. Leonard would be interesting. Hearns he has no chance.

Ezzard wrote: And If Whittaker had got the decision against Chavez (as he should have done) we’d spend more time talking about the fact that Chavez did nothing of any significance at welter. He had an unbeaten record from his days at 130 and 135… He was already looking far less formidable at 140.

Boxing fans just like to complain, it would have as much merit as people complaining about Hagler's state after he lost to Leonard. Sure Chavez wasn't in his prime, though I think he was better at 140 than he was at 130, neither was Whitaker.

Ambling Alp II wrote:
I think his wins over McGirt are overrated. The 2nd fight was especially was competitive and had several close uneventful rounds. Whitaker was not impressive.

You're just flat out wrong here. The first fight was a close but clear win for Whitaker, made closer by the fact that took the last round or two off. Excellent two way technical battle. Both men were impressive.

The rematch was a one sided beatdown in Whitaker's favor, after all the excuses made about McGirt's shoulder in the first fight.

Granted, I do believe McGirt was past it by then. One of those fights where you could basically see a fighter aging as the fight progressed. He did well just to survive. It looked like he was on the verge of being stopped.

The rematch was a beatdown? huh?
There was very little action at all. Whitaker clearly won a few rounds, McGirt a couple, and the rest were close, though Whitaker won most of them. However, many were close enough for a reasonable judge to call even or give to McGirt.
Whitaker did enouigh to win the decison, but this certainly was no beatdown and it certainly was not an impressive performance.

Ambling Alp II wrote:The rematch was a beatdown? huh?
There was very little action at all. Whitaker clearly won a few rounds, McGirt a couple, and the rest were close, though Whitaker won most of them. However, many were close enough for a reasonable judge to call even or give to McGirt.
Whitaker did enouigh to win the decison, but this certainly was no beatdown and it certainly was not an impressive performance.

What the hell fight did you watch? You sure you're not confused? The fight was similar to the first fight for about 4-5 rounds before Whitaker started taking over and dominating. He was battering McGirt in the latter rounds. At one point he threw a 10 punch combination (landing 9 of them) unanswered. It was one of his most impressive offensive performances.

Here's a 20 minute highlight of the fight:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iRLDqCHJhCo
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2tfCy-vufk8