Best Defense

[garymcfall]

Who, in your opinion , had the best defence out of:

Sweat Pea
Willie Pep
Floyd Mayweather Jr

[Bill1234]

Pep with Sweet Pea a close 2nd. Pep had incredible head movement.

[Robbi]

Whitaker

[Blacc Jesus]

Sweet Pea.

[brooklyn1550]

Pernell Whitaker

Not only do I think he was the best defensively out of the three, but I think he was the most complete as well.

[JohnThomas1]

Benitez is worthy of consideration too.

[Holmes' Jab]

Whitaker, but not by much (Pep a close runner up). :good

[Holmes' Jab]

Benitez is worthy of consideration too.


Good call.

[Bill Butcher]

Willie pep was the best defensive fighter in boxing history at his peak.

[john garfield]

At the height of his career, Pep was peerless. It went beyond watching a boxer; it was seeing a virtuoso on a Straivarius.

[Asterion]

Whitaker and Pep.

Mayweather's defense is better than Benitez or Toney's defense and worse than Pep's and Whitaker's, but it must be said that he is much better in attack.

[Mega Lamps]

Pep > Whitaker > Mayweather

[ThinBlack]

Definitely Benitez.

[pryorgatti]

Whitaker and Pep of course

[Luigi1985]

Willie Pep

[sweet_scientist]

Hearing some of the rave reviews Pep got, it's hard to go past him as the best. No one has recieved the adulation he has for his defensive skills.

But from the footage available, which pretty much consists of past prime Pep, he looks a notch below the likes of Benitez, Locche, Whitaker, who I think are his closest rivals to the mantle of best ever defensive fighter. Like I said, this is viewing past prime Pep though.

[MagnificentMatt]

Ill go Whitaker because he had the full package, inside, outside, movement, feints.

Pep looked like he had cement in his shoes sometimes, sure Pea was flat footed, but his lateral movement was great..

NOTE: havent seen a lot of Willie Pep, so feel free to criticize about the cement shoes... :-)

[ThinBlack]

That's right, especially because he was one of the 3 the threadstarter mentioned.

Out of the original three Pep, but Benitez was up there, definitely better than Sweet Pea.

[sweet_scientist]

Out of the original three Pep, but Benitez was up there, definitely better than Sweet Pea.

In some facets of his defense (i.e. in terms of economy of movement through subtle shifts of the head) Benitez was peerless, but in terms of overall defensive ability, I think Whitaker and Locche were his equal.

[brownpimp88]

No.
Benitez is the type of guy that could beat whitaker head to head though, his head movement was better and he had more power.

[brownpimp88]

He had more power, but at 140 Whitaker was simply a more complete fighter, better jab, better from a distance, and with defense to equal Benitez. At 147 it's even money, Benitez probably at 154, but not at 140.
Whitaker had a better jab but benitez was better at making you miss, IMO.

[Amsterdam]

Pep just moved for defence, he had nowhere near the technical level of the defensive impressiveness of someone like Whitaker, or Floyd Mayweather for that matter, or just about any current example...:lol:

[ThinBlack]

I guarantee you Whitaker would have fared better against Leonard than Benitez did.

I seriously doubt it.

[sweet_scientist]

I like Whitaker, at 140 especially, simply for the reason that he was more active. Pea would throw and thus land a bit more and take a close decision with neither coming close to really hurting the other. At the heigher weights Benitez has a better shot because Whitaker's activity level dropped markedly at 147-54.

[brownpimp88]

You have to admit, Benitez looked more impressive in his fights against cervantes and maurice hope than whitaker did against vazquez and mcgirt 1.

[brownpimp88]

Whitaker was very impressive shutting out a much bigger, stronger Vasquez who dropped Winky 5 times. And I don't know what is with some guys on here ragging on him for his performance against McGirt, I thought it was a very good performance, while McGirt was a very good fighter, better than Hope for sure. And in the rematch, he spanked him.
You gave whitaker all 12 rounds against vazquez?

[Luigi1985]

Cept for the little BS knockdown, it was basically a shutout, yes. He won almost every round, if you think that fight was close at all, you need to re-watch it.


:lol:

[sweet_scientist]

You have to admit, Benitez looked more impressive in his fights against cervantes and maurice hope than whitaker did against vazquez and mcgirt 1.

True, but you have to admit Whitaker looked better against Pineda and Chavez than Benitez did against Cervantes and Hope.

[sweet_scientist]

The Vasquez fight wasn't a shutout, but Whitaker won a good 7 rounds, and with the point deductions, took it rather handily.

[Luigi1985]

My bad, it was a very intense, close fight where Whitaker had to fight his way out of rough situations, he was almost out on his feet. Whitaker really was never that good, he was a B level runner his whole career. In fact, if I'm honest, Vasquez was probably robbed in that fight, as was McGirt and Mayweather, and no way he did good enough to merit a draw against Chavez.

Sounds like Luigi's take to me.


Nice to see you writing a bit more realistic...


no,seriously, don´t overact so much, a shutout is JC- Lacy, but not that fight...

[ThinBlack]

He was better from a distance, better inside, albeit with less power, and was more offensive than Benitez. Even though Leonard was faster, Whitaker was IMO craftier on the inside and had good enough reflexes and defensive timing to make Leonard miss just as much as Benitez, but with a better offensive output in terms of shots landed and how effective he was, though not in power shots.

But eventually, Leonard would get him late.

[brownpimp88]

Vazquez clearly took like 3 or 4 rounds. I remember you said whitaker-trinidad was 116-112 in ur opinion, trinidad won by like 5 or 6 points bro.

[Luigi1985]

Not an actual shutout, as in he won all 12 rounds, but he handily won the fight, it wasn't close in my estimation. Whitaker had it controlled the whole way through, so I don't see how Brownpimp says he looked not so good in it.


It´s all kind of definition, it would be one-sided if Whitaker fought there a great fighter or so, but Vasquez wasn´t far away from great...

[Outboxer]

Tough to say.

One thing I'm sure about, though, is that both Pep and Whitaker are better than Mayweather Jr in this department. I'm not quite sure who I'd place in the number 1 spot out of the two, though...I'd need to see more footage of Pep to make a fair evaluation. I'd love to see Pep vs Saddler 2.

[sweet_scientist]

Vazquez clearly took like 3 or 4 rounds. I remember you said whitaker-trinidad was 116-112 in ur opinion, trinidad won by like 5 or 6 points bro.

I had Tito-Pea scored 8-4 too (115-111, yes Whitaker DID drop Tito). Nothing wrong with thinking Tito won by a point or two more, but 8-4 is far from an untennable card.

[brownpimp88]

Upon re-watching that fight, I am torn between giving Whitaker 3 or 4 rounds, he clearly got at least 3, even hurt Tito in one of the rounds. But really, that was nowhere near a prime Whitaker, it wasn't even a fair fight at the time, he couldn't dodge his jabs, couldn't respond like he used to, and was forced to brawl on guts.
I was wonderin, do u have his first fight with ramirez and wilfredo rivera? I went to watch them and score the fights myself. Do you think jose suliaman was responsible for him being robbed against ramirez and chavez?

[Robbi]

A question I would to put to everyone.

What was Whitaker's best defensive performance of his career?. I think thats a very tough question, as mostly every fight his defense was very sound.

I would probably say Nelson, then the De la Hoya fight. His defense was pretty damn excellent against De La Hoya considering he was around at least 5 years past his prime.

Not the best performance, but a fight in which his opponents offense was good, but Whitaker's defense was sublime. Awnsers please.

[sweet_scientist]

A question I would to put to everyone.

What was Whitaker's best defensive performance of his career?. I think thats a very tough question, as mostly every fight his defense was very sound.

I would probably say Nelson, then the De la Hoya fight. His defense was pretty damn excellent against De La Hoya considering he was around at least 5 years past his prime.

Not the best performance, but a fight in which his opponents offense was good, but Whitaker's defense was sublime. Awnsers please.
I'd have to agree Robbi, those two were probably the best, and perhaps not by coincidence, they put a lot of offensive pressure on Whitaker.

The scary thing was that Whitaker wasn't even pushed to his defensive limits in his prime to see what kind of crazy shit he was capable of.

Though I think he loses to the likes of Armstrong and Duran, I think he'd have come up with some of the most incredible stuff if he had to face them at 135.

His top 5 defensive performances, as I see it:

1. Nelson
2. DLH
3. Ramirez II
4. Pendleton
5. Pineda

[sweet_scientist]

I've been doing a lot of thinking about the Armstrong fight, I would be more willing to except that he loses to Armstrong than Duran nowadays, even though Armstrong is a pressure fighter that Pea thrives against, I wouldn't argue someone choosing him, having gone over a lot of film of Armstrong.

What in your view gives Armstrong a better chance than Duran? Is it his workrate?

[sues2nd]

Benitez is worthy of consideration too.

As is Hopkins (better than Floyd if you ask me...).

Oh and Whitaker, closely followed by Pep........THEN Floyd. Of the three you named.

[sues2nd]

A question I would to put to everyone.

What was Whitaker's best defensive performance of his career?. I think thats a very tough question, as mostly every fight his defense was very sound.

I would probably say Nelson, then the De la Hoya fight. His defense was pretty damn excellent against De La Hoya considering he was around at least 5 years past his prime.

Not the best performance, but a fight in which his opponents offense was good, but Whitaker's defense was sublime. Awnsers please.

Ramirez 2 or Nelson.

[sues2nd]

Hopkins better than Floyd? Interesting, I disagree, why do you think so?

Floyd's defense, for the most part is textbook (to an extent). He always puts himself, or his arms/gloves, in the right spot to block an opponents attack. And he is phenominal at it.

Hopkins is more. His reflexes are insane (especially when you factor in his advanced age), he is a master at moving juuuust outside/to the side of a punch and leaving himself in the perfect position to counter. On top of that, he ALWAYS keeps his chin perfectly tucked and almost at will rolls with each punch that lands, guarenteeing that if something does land (which doesnt happen to regularly), the effect is negated.

Think about it. When was the last time you saw Hopkins even buzzed.....

Of this current generation of fighters, I rank Hopkins head and shoulders above the rest.

Hopkins







Floyd

Winky
Toney
Spinks
etc.

(I dont count RJJ....I am still trying to pretend he is retired....:| )

[Robbi]

Floyd's defense, for the most part is textbook (to an extent). He always puts himself, or his arms/gloves, in the right spot to block an opponents attack. And he is phenominal at it.

Hopkins is more. His reflexes are insane (especially when you factor in his advanced age), he is a master at moving juuuust outside/to the side of a punch and leaving himself in the perfect position to counter. On top of that, he ALWAYS keeps his chin perfectly tucked and almost at will rolls with each punch that lands, guarenteeing that if something does land (which doesnt happen to regularly), the effect is negated.

Think about it. When was the last time you saw Hopkins even buzzed.....

Of this current generation of fighters, I rank Hopkins head and shoulders above the rest.

Hopkins







Floyd

Winky
Toney
Spinks
etc.

(I dont count RJJ....I am still trying to pretend he is retired....:| )

Hopkins has an excellent defense, which is mainly based on superb movement and awareness. His reflexes and ability to feint and counter, sublime.

Hopkins beats Hagler, Leonard, Hearns, and Duran at middleweight.

I'm not getting caught up in the hype that surrounds the fabulous four, thus rating them on reputation over Hopkins.

[sweet_scientist]

Yes, I'd say so, better than Nelson's, on a higher level, then again, re-thinking that fight with Nelson makes me favor Whitaker again, against basically all pressure figters his size.

Nelson only stepped on the pedal in the second half of the fight, but you can rest assured that Armstrong will be going full bore from start to finish. The other big difference I see between Nelson and Armstrong is that Armstrong is much, much better on the inside. Nelson tried hard to press the fight but he had no idea what to do when he had Whitaker in close, continuing to take wild swings at Whitaker's head. I think Armstrong will wisely attack the body and thus land much more consistently than Nelson was able to.

[sweet_scientist]

Good points. Whitaker pretty much owned Nelson from start to fnish, but again, as you said, Armstrong would likely be working on hurting Whitaker early on, while perhaps losing on points, to slow him down late. I see this being a close Decision that Armstrong could win on punishment, or Whitaker could win on points racked up early.

No doubt Whitaker owned Nelson. Along with the second Ramirez fight it was probably the most aesthetically pleasing ownage I've ever seen.

I too see a close fight with Armstrong and really there's nothing too marked that points to either man getting the better of the other.

[Robbi]

No doubt Whitaker owned Nelson. Along with the second Ramirez fight it was probably the most aesthetically pleasing ownage I've ever seen.

I too see a close fight with Armstrong and really there's nothing too marked that points to either man getting the better of the other.

The first time I watched Whitaker v Ramirez II, I couldn't stop laughing. It was outright "ownage" beyond belief.

And the the Nelson performance, my favourite.

[sweet_scientist]

The first time I watched Whitaker v Ramirez II, I couldn't stop laughing. It was outright "ownage" beyond belief.

And the the Nelson performance, my favourite.

Yeah, for me Pea-Ramirez II brought a mixture of amazement, laughter and sympathy for JLR who was being humiliated on all fronts. Got to hand it to him for staying stoic and resolute to the very end. Lesser men would have quit that night.

[brownpimp88]

Sweet Pea definetly accomplished more at lightweight. His fights with ramirez, nelson, haugen, mayweather, pendleton, and paez were against world class comp. Duran fought a shitload of bums other than a few good fighters. Duran best wins at that weight are against buchanon, de jesus, ishimatsu, marcel and kobayashi. Whitaker has the better LW resume.

[JohnThomas1]

As is Hopkins (better than Floyd if you ask me...).

Oh and Whitaker, closely followed by Pep........THEN Floyd. Of the three you named.

Hopkins is brilliant technically for sure. Not a big fan but Toney has some great defense when on song. Maybe not in this league. RJJ in his peak was almost unhittable for big periods.

[young griffo]

Hopkins is brilliant technically for sure. Not a big fan but Toney has some great defense when on song. Maybe not in this league. RJJ in his peak was almost unhittable for big periods.
RJJ is a very good call.
His evasiveness gets overlooked somewhat in light of the Tarver and Johnson losses,but prior to these how much punishment did he take?

The answer is stuff all.

He fought fights where the opponents punchstats were in single figures over a number of rounds.The Pazienza fight is a good example as he could only land something like seven punches over three rounds against Roy.Never minding Vinny being overmatched this is still astounding.

Even Hopkins had a sub-20% connect rate against Roy and he was seen to have performed well against him.

His defense whether it was reliant on his reflexes or not was still outstanding.