BoxRec

...Taken to school in shockingly one-sided affairs, which you found particularly impressive?

This is inspired by having recently watched Whitaker-Nelson. This one doesn't get a lot of talk-time, I suppose because Whitaker was younger & bigger --- & also because of the higher-profile Whitaker-Chavez schooling. Even so, I thought this was just outstanding. Nelson literally spent twelve agonising rounds looking like an amateur.

Whitaker was really something, in his day. The most under-rated of the great Lightweights through history, IMO.

Tyson-Spinks.

That was more a clobbering along the lines of Foreman-Frazier I, than it was a lesson in the sweet science --- more of the latter, less of the former, is what I'm after.

Barerra-Hamed

Mayweather-Corrales

Ezzard wrote:Barerra-Hamed

He was good, but do you think Hamed is really a ring legend? That's a little lofty for my liking, but to each, his own

Roy Jones - James Toney

Kirkland Laing - Roberto Duran

Goodnight, Irene wrote:...Taken to school in shockingly one-sided affairs, which you found particularly impressive?

This is inspired by having recently watched Whitaker-Nelson. This one doesn't get a lot of talk-time, I suppose because Whitaker was younger & bigger --- & also because of the higher-profile Whitaker-Chavez schooling. Even so, I thought this was just outstanding. Nelson literally spent twelve agonising rounds looking like an amateur.

Whitaker was really something, in his day. The most under-rated of the great Lightweights through history, IMO.

The great Pernell Whitaker gave the so called "Professor" a boxing mastery. If Nelson was "The Professor" what was Whitaker?

I put it in because it was supposed to be a competitive fight and ended up an almost shut out. I wouldn't consider Hamed a legend...

Nelson was a legend but not at 135. IMO that was a very safe fight for Whittaker

^^^That's not fair to Whitaker, IMO. No one else at that time could have done to Nelson what he did.

Nelson was reduced to laughing-stock status. That was as impressive as it possibly could've been.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:^^^That's not fair to Whitaker, IMO. No one else at that time could have done to Nelson what he did.

Nelson was reduced to laughing-stock status. That was as impressive as it possibly could've been.

It was great boxing, as always from Pernell, but IMO it was also great match making. Nelson was a great fighter, with a great name but few fighters put much leather on Whittaker and a guy moving up was unlikely to have the power to slow him down.

Roy Jones -- James Toney.

(ducks instinctively to get out the way of the flurry of "But he was dehydrated/too light/too fat/not motivated/poisoned by his mom's cookies/ distracted by Roy's shorts" from James' fan-base...)

Winky Wright vs Trinidad

Locche vs Cervantes 1

Nelson will always fare better against fighters who would come to him. Whitaker' movement, speed and effective style is too much to overcome. He kept coming as expected and if I remember the scoring was closer than it should have been. Whitaker in his prime barely lost a round let alone a fight.

Crssbones wrote:Nelson will always fare better against fighters who would come to him. Whitaker' movement, speed and effective style is too much to overcome. He kept coming as expected and if I remember the scoring was closer than it should have been. Whitaker in his prime barely lost a round let alone a fight.

Indeed. I have Whitaker down as the greatest Lightweight in boxing history, though it's one of those, "all-by-my-lonesome" opinions most of us have

Greatest Lightweight of all time in my opinion would be Robert Duran. I am also an Alexis Arguello fan as well Benny Leonard. Carlos Ortiz is another top lightweight. Ike Williams. Whitaker makes the top ten, but in the upper 6 to 10. Also a factor would be number of rounds 12 or 15. Whitaker stands more of a chance in 12 rounder than a 15 rounder. And against a flat foot fighter like Arguello (IE: Jose Luis Ramirez). A fighter like Duran would make Whitaker move at a pace greater than he would want to which would make the late rounds crucial for him. Azuhma Nelson followed Whitaker around trying to walk him down. Duran would cut the ring off making it smaller. Whitaker' lack of power is what would hurt him against the top lightweights of all time.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

Crssbones wrote:Nelson will always fare better against fighters who would come to him. Whitaker' movement, speed and effective style is too much to overcome. He kept coming as expected and if I remember the scoring was closer than it should have been. Whitaker in his prime barely lost a round let alone a fight.

Indeed. I have Whitaker down as the greatest Lightweight in boxing history, though it's one of those, "all-by-my-lonesome" opinions most of us have

You're not alone

Nice to hear, Grimm

Grimm wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

Crssbones wrote:Nelson will always fare better against fighters who would come to him. Whitaker' movement, speed and effective style is too much to overcome. He kept coming as expected and if I remember the scoring was closer than it should have been. Whitaker in his prime barely lost a round let alone a fight.

Indeed. I have Whitaker down as the greatest Lightweight in boxing history, though it's one of those, "all-by-my-lonesome" opinions most of us have

You're not alone

Make that three.. Whitaker is the greatest lightweight of all time in my opinion.

The one that came to mind for me was the 1944 non-title fight between Willie Pep, the reigning featherweight champion, and Manuel Ortiz, the reigning bantamweight king.

I've never seen the fight (I don't even know if a film exists) but here were two all-time greats of their respective divisions (many think that each was his division's best of all-time); yet, by all accounts, Pep boxed Ortiz' ears off, winning 8 of 10 rounds, and totally dominating the last two rounds.

Gomez vs. Zarate
Sanchez vs Gomez