Lightweight Special...

Goodnight, Irene · Post by **Goodnight, Irene** » 21 Oct 2007, 19:58

Roberto Duran -vs- Pernell Whitaker

Still relatively new to this forum so if this has been done to death or anything let me know, but my opinion here (& I know it'll upset it's share of people) is that Whitaker takes this on points. I don't know if I've seen a slicker or more deftly slippery fighter in my lifetime, & I like that unique brand of ingenuity he brought to work against a Duran who perhaps winds up more frustrated than he's ever been (I can imagine him fouling in fury & maybe even chewing on the top rope between rounds!) but he's just too unreal a fighter not to remain competitive, so I go for a close UD or maybe SD to Sweet Pea over Hands Of Stone.

Martin Sosa Cameron · Post by **Martin Sosa Cameron** » 24 Oct 2007, 16:41

Durán WPTS Whitaker

bollox · Post by **bollox** » 24 Oct 2007, 17:42

Whilst Whitaker was an incredible defensive fighter Duran at lightweight just had that extra 'something' that the greats have, that would have seen him find a way to beat him. Very close UD to Roberto

dagosd2000 · Post by **dagosd2000** » 27 Oct 2007, 19:49

A great matchup for sure. Duran at lightweight was relentless. One thing that's overlooked sometimes is that Duran was a good defensive fighter. He bobbed and weaved,rolled his shoulders. He didn't take a lot of clean shots. I think he was faster than Whittaker. He was a smart fighter too. He could exploit an opponent's vulnerability whether it was physical or mental. He took away Leonard's perception that he was the stronger fighter by swarming him. Leonard was a little awstruck and Duran jumped on him. Also Duran, when he was lightweight and Leonard I,got intensely motivated against African American fighters. (After Leonard II Duran never gets back that supremecy) Whittaker is crafty,but sometimes he would start slow. A good chin. He'd really have to work. I don't think he would have enough counter punching to off set Duran's attack. A 15 round decision for Duran.

Goodnight, Irene · Post by **Goodnight, Irene** » 28 Oct 2007, 00:49

This would be the wrong place for that manner of post.

Goodnight, Irene · Post by **Goodnight, Irene** » 28 Oct 2007, 01:45

The post is out of place Decagon. There are other forums infinitely better suited for it. I can't imagine why you would dispute such a basic claim as the one I'm making.

Goodnight, Irene · Post by **Goodnight, Irene** » 28 Oct 2007, 01:58

I'm not new to posting in forums, however. That post is out of place. Only someone close enough to the topic so as to be the actual poster of the material could be so blinded as to see otherwise.

This thread is about Duran-Whitaker. Off-topic happens often, but it typically remains within the realm of boxing (or at least sport), not personal history, legal or otherwise. I'd prefer it if this thread remained about Duran-Whitaker.

elmersalsa · Post by **elmersalsa** » 29 Oct 2007, 02:31

Decagon wrote:Duran and Whitaker are/were both drug users. I was simply trying to convey what they might be feeling in a prospective matchup.

Duran a drug user??? Tell me some stories? I know that Sugar Ray Leonard was a dope fiend in the 80s

Flump · Post by **Flump** » 29 Oct 2007, 04:43

Classic matchup. If the fight is scheduled for 12 rounds and Jay Nady is the ref then Sweet Pea by decision. If it's 15 rounds and the referee is the joker who 'refereed' the Davey Moore fight then Duran by late rounds massacre.

harrygreb · Post by **harrygreb** » 01 Nov 2007, 17:57

for me peak duran was unsurpassed at lightweight bar no man. beats whitaker before the final bell. i also feel the post by decagon was out of place and i would gladly not have read it.

Collins2000 · Post by **Collins2000** » 01 Nov 2007, 21:50

harrygreb wrote:for me peak duran was unsurpassed at lightweight bar no man. beats whitaker before the final bell. i also feel the post by decagon was out of place and i would gladly not have read it.

Poor old Decagon always like to spice up his posts with nonsense. The other week he claimed Pope John Paul II was a former nazi. He was corrected several times but continued the daft claims for a week or so.

Collins2000 · Post by **Collins2000** » 02 Nov 2007, 01:59

Decagon wrote:Yeah. I had a bit of a relapse.

Never mind, I like you better when you are on wacky baccy and the prozac. You don't seem quite so sad and lonely.

Collins2000 · Post by **Collins2000** » 02 Nov 2007, 02:19

Decagon wrote:
Collins2000 wrote:You don't seem quite so sad and lonely.
Hmmm. I was sad and lonely when I was married, but now I'm not? I guess it makes sense.

The asian chick dumped you?

We've all been dumped at some point but you can't use that as an excuse for hitting the crack pipe and calling Pope John Paul II a nazi!

Can't your old mafia buddies get you some pussy?

:TU:

Lightweight Special...

Lightweight Special...

Fight of the Year