Hearns vs. Whitaker at 147 15 rds.

[Joe E]

Hearns was at his best at 147.Speed,,crushing power,and insurmountible height, and reach advantages.I see an early K.O.,perhaps in the 4th or 5th.

[Mankind]

As good as whitaker was i cant see him being able to do anything with the taller hearns.

This is just a terrible style match for whitaker IMO.
Whitaker doesnt carry enough power at 147 to KO Hearns.

Im not sure If whitaker gets himself knocked out though unless he tries to bull through hearns trying to land some haymakers.

I see Hearns just busting him up and huring him from time to time to a clear cut one sided decision.

[Robbi]

Hearns via KO, or points.

[Joe E]

As good as whitaker was i cant see him being able to do anything with the taller hearns.

This is just a terrible style match for whitaker IMO.
Whitaker doesnt carry enough power at 147 to KO Hearns.

Im not sure If whitaker gets himself knocked out though unless he tries to bull through hearns trying to land some haymakers.

I see Hearns just busting him up and huring him from time to time to a clear cut one sided decision.Agreed.In order to get Hearns attention Whitaker would have to hurt him,which he could'nt do at 147.Thanks Manny!

[DaveTheWave]

Not forgetting the fact that Pernell could be hurt, Hearns would touch him and hurt him. Just a matter of time before he gets caught. Hearns has 7" on Whitaker! That's alot of punching up-

Hearns KO4

[Shake]

You can't outbox Tommy Hearns at 14 in his prime. Whitaker can't K.O him, thugh he could dig at the body when he chose to. Point is, Hearns can fight his fight, Whitaker can't fight his.

[brooklyn1550]

Hearns by UD or mid-to-late round TKO

The worst possible style matchup for Sweet Pea

[Longhhorn71]

Whitaker loses the fight, but early KO? Nah, I'm pretty sure you're getting that from the Duran fight. I think Whitaker lasts the distance for sure, and have good reason to think it.

Hearns by wide UD though, something like 8-4 or 9-3 with a KD or two against him.

Hearns best offensive punch is his right hand which is disaster for southpaws.

But Whitaker did all that weird defensive moves and stuff.

I concur with the wide Hearns UD with a flash Whitaker KD early in the fight.

[sues2nd]

Whitaker loses the fight, but early KO? Nah, I'm pretty sure you're getting that from the Duran fight. I think Whitaker lasts the distance for sure, and have good reason to think it.

Hearns by wide UD though, something like 8-4 or 9-3 with a KD or two against him.

Exactly how I see it.

[Sonny Carson]

Hearns best offensive punch is his right hand which is disaster for southpaws.

But Whitaker did all that weird defensive moves and stuff.

I concur with the wide Hearns UD with a flash Whitaker KD early in the fight.
I agree.

[SugarRay]

You can't outbox Tommy Hearns at 14 in his prime. Whitaker can't K.O him, thugh he could dig at the body when he chose to. Point is, Hearns can fight his fight, Whitaker can't fight his.

Agreed. Sugar Ray Leonard as great as he was could not outbox Hearns. He had to out-punch him. I don't see Whitaker doing that. Whitaker would receive a beating of his lifetime or maybe 2 lifetimes. I honestly believe that if Hearns had a better chin (like Leonards or Robinsons) he would be all-time P4P #1. Yes, better than Robinson.

[errsta]

hearns + a chin may very well be the best WW this side of Ray Robinson.

Against whitaker, the chin would not even factor in.

Hearns via lopsided UD but most likely by stoppage.

[brownpimp88]

Hearns + a chin would actually be better than Robinson I'd have to say.
whitaker + julian jackson power would be even better

[pryorgatti]

Can you be a defansive wizard with that kind of power? I don't think so ...

[Robbi]

Hearns gets massive compliments for his skill, and rightly so. He was a great boxer who could control opponents with his left hand alone. When you talk about pure boxing, Hearns without question among the greatest ever to step between the ropes. He would have been a top 5 ATG if his chin was like a rock.

What about Whitaker with power though?. That sure is a scary thought.

[Robbi]

Can you be a defansive wizard with that kind of power? I don't think so ...

Correct, If Whitaker did have serious power he would have become an entirely different fighter, and no doubt would have taken more chances. But he was what he was, and I like him like that. Having no power and winning rounds was his game, and thats part of the attraction with him as a fighter.

[werety]

Hearns at WW if u don't K.O. him ur not going to win and we know Whitaker couldn't K.O. him.

[RafaelGonzal]

Sweetpea leaves the ring in stretcher!!!!!

[RafaelGonzal]

Sweetpea leaves the ring in stretcher!!!!!

[Robbi]

Sweetpea leaves the ring in stretcher!!!!!

Trinidad never exactly had feather fists, and he gave the cocaine headed Whitaker a serious pounding over the distance and never stopped him.

Please don't tell me Hearns' power at welterweight was from a different planet to Trinidad's.

Both Trinidad and Hearns' power was from the same planet, Pluto. Saying that, Hearns had the slight edge in power and could well stop Whitaker.

[Boro chris]

whitaker + julian jackson power would be even better

Now thats just sick.:admin :lol: :lol:

[Holmes' Jab]

Hearns, by UD or late TKO. Bad stylistic matchup for Pea.

[Monstar]

i dont see it going longa den 4 rounds

win - Hearns

[True Writer]

Agreed. Sugar Ray Leonard as great as he was could not outbox Hearns. He had to out-punch him. I don't see Whitaker doing that. Whitaker would receive a beating of his lifetime or maybe 2 lifetimes. I honestly believe that if Hearns had a better chin (like Leonards or Robinsons) he would be all-time P4P #1. Yes, better than Robinson.

I agree.

[apollack]

Hearns by decision. Pea was a southpaw, very quick, great shape, excellent footwork, wonderful headmovement, just enough pop to get respect but not to necessarily hurt Tommy. Tommy would win because of his height, reach, speed and power, but not by knockout. I don't see anyone knocking out a prime Pea, period. Flash knockdown at best but Pea gets himself out of trouble. Might actually be more of a tactical battle than many think - a la Hearns-Benitez.

[Stonehands89]

Trinidad had a build slightly similar to Hearns but was 2 inches shorter and 7 inches less reach. He could punch alright but was never as dynamic, fast, or explosive as Hearns. Steward called Trinidad "killer robot"... but Hearns was built like lightning and struck it like it too. They are not similar fighters.

Hearns would keep Whitaker on the tail end of his jab and although he may miss a few rights, one will land early because Hearns will keep on the attack. I think it is folly to believe that Whitaker will stand up to too many explosions off his cranium.

Whitaker's sheer skill and yes, durability, will see him through to the mid-rounds.

[JohnThomas1]

Trinidad had a build slightly similar to Hearns but was 2 inches shorter and 7 inches less reach. He could punch alright but was never as dynamic, fast, or explosive as Hearns. Steward called Trinidad "killer robot"... but Hearns was built like lightning and struck it like it too. They are not similar fighters.

Hearns would keep Whitaker on the tail end of his jab and although he may miss a few rights, one will land early because Hearns will keep on the attack. I think it is folly to believe that Whitaker will stand up to too many explosions off his cranium.

Whitaker's sheer skill and yes, durability, will see him through to the mid-rounds.

Top little post.

[sweet_scientist]

As good as whitaker was i cant see him being able to do anything with the taller hearns.

This is just a terrible style match for whitaker IMO.
Whitaker doesnt carry enough power at 147 to KO Hearns.

Im not sure If whitaker gets himself knocked out though unless he tries to bull through hearns trying to land some haymakers.

I see Hearns just busting him up and huring him from time to time to a clear cut one sided decision.

Gotta agree with that.

Should he choose to fight a survival fight, like Benitez did, he'll probably last the distance, but I don't think Whitaker will. Wasn't his style. Most likely he tries to move in on the inside and use his superior infighting like he attempted to do when facing other big hitting guys like Roger Mayweather, Freddie Pendleton and Felix Trinidad.

He'll probably have a few patches where it's succesful but he won't have the pop to finish Hearns off and after a while, Hearns will likely start landing powerful straight rights behind the jab, which will keep Whitaker frustrated and vulnerable to the right for as long as the fight lasts.

I'd say Hearns KO's him around the 10th in what will be a fascinating and entertaining scrap which will showcase some of the best of both their worlds.

[Robbi]

Trinidad had a build slightly similar to Hearns but was 2 inches shorter and 7 inches less reach. He could punch alright but was never as dynamic, fast, or explosive as Hearns. Steward called Trinidad "killer robot"... but Hearns was built like lightning and struck it like it too. They are not similar fighters.

Hearns would keep Whitaker on the tail end of his jab and although he may miss a few rights, one will land early because Hearns will keep on the attack. I think it is folly to believe that Whitaker will stand up to too many explosions off his cranium.

Whitaker's sheer skill and yes, durability, will see him through to the mid-rounds.

Hearns only had around a 5 inch reach advantage over Trinidad. And Hearns would have given Whitaker a much better going over with the jab than Trinidad, who seldom used that particular punch.

The reason why Hearns would keep on the attack, more free with his punches - he got off better. Trinidad was much more measured with his approach, also more economical. Movement was also not a strong part of Trinidad's game as he liked to strictly back-up opponents. Hearns was more multi dimensional.

Power. Trinidad wasn't quite as fast, but not much between them in outright power and the consequences were similar when bombs landed. I would use the word "explosive" on equal terms with them both.

Hearns' artillery was more constant, with the left jab popping out during those moments nothing heavy was being thrown. Trinidad on the other hand was a thinker, and it was like left hook - straight right - left hook - and a long pause with no jab in between, then back to the heavy bombs again.

Trinidad also much easier to hit with shots up the middle, eating the jab against De La Hoya, Vargas, Hopkins, and Wright.

I feel Hearns would be able to stop Whitaker as he was balanced out more with offense and defense than Trinidad.

But people picking Hearns on points over Whitaker have a case. Both Trinidad and Hearns have power which can be put in the same bracket, although a slight debatable edge might favour Hearns. But the Whitaker who fought Trinidad, and the prime welterweight version Hearns would face are like chalk and cheese.

I'd say stoppage, maybe points.

[Stonehands89]

It wasn't the fact that Tito wasn't as skilled as Hearns, it was the fact that Whitaker was at such a bad point in his career that he would literally eat everything Tito threw at him, he had none of the quickness or slickness that the version we'd be putting up against Hearns would have. Hearns wins, no doubt, but he wouldn't be tagging clean a prime Whitaker(at 147 anyway) even as much as Tito did with the version of Whitaker that he faced. I am sure of that.
Sweet Pea, you strike me as the Stonehands of some of the newbie's imagination. In other words, some who are not familiar with my posts accuse me of bias in favor of Duran. I know that I am objective and have arrived at my positions regarding Duran fairly and deductively.

You have not convinced me that your arguments are not extracted fairly from your name. Deny nothing, you have no need to. I will watch and see from the true evidence --your posts. As it is now, I think that Senya is really Roy Jones on the site -he's so biased and full of it. Could you really be.... Sweet Pea himself? I hope not.

[sweet_scientist]

Sweet Pea, you strike me as the Stonehands of some of the newbie's imagination. In other words, some who are not familiar with my posts accuse me of bias in favor of Duran. I know that I am objective and have arrived at my positions regarding Duran fairly and deductively.

You have not convinced me that your arguments are not extracted fairly from your name. Deny nothing, you have no need to. I will watch and see from the true evidence --your posts. As it is now, I think that Senya is really Roy Jones on the site -he's so biased and full of it. Could you really be.... Sweet Pea himself? I hope not.

:lol:

No way Pete ever admits he loses to Tommy!

That tells us right there that it's not him...

[JohnThomas1]

Nobody ever convinces you of anything, I argue with you because this is a board, if something was staring you right in the face you'd continue along with your opinion, trying to intimidate the other poster. Sorry, doesn't work on me.


This is not at all true Pea, Stonehands has conceded certain points to me in the odd debate and very willingly proclaimed it. Many a time i've seen him digest what someone is saying and alter his opinion slightly. The thing is, it's gotta be a damn good point as he has gone to great lengths to formulate his own opinions and views. The couple of times Stonehands and Meta5 have got together in debate has been something to behold.

[Robbi]

This is not at all true Pea, Stonehands has conceded certain points to me in the odd debate and very willingly proclaimed it. Many a time i've seen him digest what someone is saying and alter his opinion slightly. The thing is, it's gotta be a damn good point as he has gone to great lengths to formulate his own opinions and views. The couple of times Stonehands and Meta5 have got together in debate has been something to behold.

I once disagreed with Stonehands on a matter which was soley boxing related. He replied back and said "watch to whom you provoke". From his reaction it seems he never liked my difference of opinion. He just took me the wrong way, not sure why to be honest.

Well, I sure aint here to provoke anyone. I'm here to chat about boxing, and boxing only.

[JohnThomas1]

I once disagreed with Stonehands on a matter which was soley boxing related. He replied back and said "watch to whom you provoke". From his reaction it seems he never liked my difference of opinion. He just took me the wrong way, not sure why to be honest.

Well, I sure aint here to provoke anyone. I'm here to chat about boxing, and boxing only.

No doubt it was a misunderstanding of your intentions mate. You come across wrong, he took it wrong, whatever. I see you two swapping plenty of debate and copliment the last few days, so i can't see the drama.

[Stonehands89]

Nobody ever convinces you of anything, I argue with you because this is a board, if something was staring you right in the face you'd continue along with your opinion, trying to intimidate the other poster. Sorry, doesn't work on me.

Anyways, what is so amazingly biased about saying Whitaker lasts the distance? Explain. Please. An old, shot, coke-head Whitaker brawled and took everything a prime Trinidad could dish out and lasted. A prime Whitaker was NOTHING like that one, and would've beaten Trinidad. The fact that a fully past it, shell of his former self version of Whitaker could last the distance while taking everything from Tito(It's not like he was using his defense and running to survive, he was fighting and eating his shots) tells me a prime Whitaker would be able to slip more shots, and fight a fight resembling Pernell Whitaker. Hearns still has the advantages of power, height, and reach, but he isn't tagging Pea as much as you guys say. Leonard took everything he threw and came forward threw it. Benitez fought a survival fight, but survived. Pea would fight his fight, taking some shots, eating them, maybe even getting dropped, but fighting his fight, slipping a lot, and landing his own.

Again, Hearns wins, but not by stoppage. He does not get hit as much as in the Tito fight, because again, the two Whitakers we're talking about here are nothing alike. I realize that Tito and Hearns box nothing alike, but the fact is, saying Hearns was more accurate doesn't really matter, as Tito was landing everything when they fought anyway.

Stick to your opinion, I'll stick to mine, if you think it's that big a deal that I think a fighter will last the distance just because your favorite got blasted within two rounds, then whatever, I'll end the argument.
Your emotional reaction indicates that I've touched a nerve. Your feelings are irrelevant to me and everyone else on this forum -so please be considerate and limit your temper tantrums to your therapist's office. Formulate argument and retorts with an eye on facts and reasoning because your post only confirms suspicions about your lack of objectivity.

I will "stick to my opinions" only so long as there are no better arguments out there. Try that approach. JohnThomas, Meta5, Manassa, Duodenum and a few others have forced me to concede points or amend my position.

[Stonehands89]

I once disagreed with Stonehands on a matter which was soley boxing related. He replied back and said "watch to whom you provoke". From his reaction it seems he never liked my difference of opinion. He just took me the wrong way, not sure why to be honest.

Well, I sure aint here to provoke anyone. I'm here to chat about boxing, and boxing only.
Your memory is faulty.

When someone responds to a post you craft as a "joke" -it's a provocation. So you got called on it. Contrary to your friend "Sweet Pea's" accusation, I'm not trying to get "intimidating" -nor do I get emotional about it. However, provocations aren't free. So, here's the lesson: there are quite a few posters out here besides me that know their stuff and take care to craft thoughtful responses -if someone retorts with nonsense or gets personal, they should be prepared for counters. And these counters are not supposed to feel good.

[Robbi]

Your memory is faulty.

When someone responds to a post you craft as a "joke" -it's a provocation. So you got called on it. Contrary to your friend "Sweet Pea's" accusation, I'm not trying to get "intimidating" -nor do I get emotional about it. However, provocations aren't free. So, here's the lesson: there are quite a few posters out here besides me that know their stuff and take care to craft thoughtful responses -if someone retorts with nonsense or gets personal, they should be prepared for counters. And these counters are not supposed to feel good.

Stonehands. My point was put forward and wasn't provoking in any manner whatsoever. I disagreed with you, and you took it as "being provoked" you later gave ground and thought I was trying to aggravate you, you then went onto say something like "some people on here with no knowledge tend to get personal, your not one of them". I wasn't getting personal, something Im never guilty of on here Im afraid.

"thoughtful responses" I would like to think I get the thumbs up in that area.

One of the reasons I post on the classic forum, because its full of sensible observers who know boxing well. The general forum on the otherhand is full of people who are outrageous with their views, and a large amount are nuthuggers.

[Robbi]

Your memory is faulty.

It certaintly isn't.

[enquirer]

Sweet pea,when it comes to whitaker you dont have enough objectivity.....
The three posters whose comments i read most are you,robbi and stonehands...(by virtue of chance and an appreciation of duran.)
I think stonehamds opinions are very well crafted,insightful,objective and knowledgable,i feel robbi is reasonable at times,but honestly i find yourself very emotional,biased and thinking that your OPINIONS are fact.....Knowing you,you wont take this as constructive criticism but will either insult or ignore.....Good day.....

[enquirer]

I have read many of your posts,im not basing my view on just this thread....Stoonehands posts are well crafted,just because he fired a broadside at you doesnt make him any less a poster at all,maybe you dont appreciate the sarcasm,humour and home truths you received from him.....Ive seen you insult many in the general forum and resort to gutter talk,ive also seen you act all arrogant and know it all....
I find a lot of your arguements and logic are just fitting the facts to your case rather than the other way round....
ps; how can sweet pea avoid being stopped by the hardest punching welter of all times with lightning speed,huge reach,height and size advantages and a rapier like jab? Pea doesnt have the punch to stop hearns,nor the jab and pea wont run away as he has no chance to win if he does this...If he stands in the pocket and tries to duck and jink he will eventually eat right hands,sharp jabs and left hooks,and if he tries to trade he will definately be knocked out clean...Comparing trinidads offense to hearns is just silly,hearns is three times faster than tito,and sets up his artillery behind the jab,just ask duran....

pps;dont the mods vet the guys who frequent the general forum before they post in the classic section???!!!!!:hat

[enquirer]

How on earth can you compare whitaker at what 5 ft 7 and a natural lightweight with benitez and leonard who are both 5 ft 10/11 and natural or solid at 147? This is where your bias comes in,whitaker does not defy the laws of physics,if he is trying to win against hearns he must engage at some stage and he does not have the height or reach to keep out of trouble when doing this....Leonard had height and a 74 inch reach,benitez had height as well,not to mention that both were truely great boxers,especially leonard...
I appreciate whitakers tremendous skills at his weight,he beat one of my favorites at the time (jc chavez.) convincingly and like no other,but chavez was pretty much the same size as sweet pea and does not belong in the same sratosphere as hearns as far as welterweight offense is concerned...
You base whitakers ability to survive hearns punches by one 'beating' he took at the hands of trinidad? Well isnt that a pretty much direct comparison of hearns and trinidad offense wise? I feel trinidads punches are much easier to avoid by a slickster than avoiding someone like hearns punches,because the hit mans punches are much faster,are set up with a jab and the truth be told are harder...How come duran lasted 15 with marvin yet was blown out in two by hearns? For the exact same reason that hearns' offense is quicker than marvins,more powerful and set up by a rapier jab along with huge reach and height advantages,which by the way is one of the reasons why duran could not avoid the shots and leonard and benitez could...
Tell me also,what is to stop tommy from letting go of his bombs against sweet pea? Sweet peas awesome power and huge reach? Hearns dropped bombs against cuevas,duran,hagler and leonard and they all had the firepower to hurt him,pea does not.....How do you feel pea would do on the inside versus tommys left hook and body attack? (and please dont compare the much slower,much less powerful and smaller chavez with tommys body attack) How does pea land his jab when nobody ever outjabbed tommy from leonard to hill? How does pea get tommys respect in there,by his resume,his reputation,your inflated opinion of him?
Humour me oh great pea......

[Outboxer]

Hearns wins.

Whitaker, for all his silky skills, cannot outbox him -- Hearns' massive reach, blistering speed and scary power (especially the straight right) will frustrate Pea at every turn. Pea can certainly make Hearns miss far more than usual, like Benitez was able to do, but simply surviving/pulling off beautiful defensive moves isn't enough to win a fight. Thus, when Pea discovers that he cannot, much to his surprise/dismay, outbox Hearns, I think he'll try and engage him up close and attempt to make it an in-fight, which he was actually very skilled at when he needed to do so. The problem is that he doesn't have the power needed (when at this close range) to exploit Hearn's infamous weakness, that delicate chin, and so although he'll fare better than he would boxing on the outside, he'll still lose out. As a result, I would back Hearns via UD for the ultimate result.

I lean in the direction of him not being able to knock Pea out (although with his skills, speed and power, you can NEVER completely rule this outcome out) because of Pea's defensive prowess and very real durability in both the mental and physical sense. He may get knocked down more than once, but I see him making it to the finishing line. As I said before, though, you can never completely rule out a knockout whenever Hearns is concerned -- he really was that devestating, and so I wouldn't be surprised if he did manage to put Pea down for the 12 count, even though I lean more in the direction of Pea making it out of the fight on his feet.

One thing I think we can all agree on -- it would be a very interesting fight.

[Robbi]

The first poster to come slightly off the rails away from the actual topic being discussed "Hearns v Whitaker at 147lbs" and attack someone for being biased, stating that arguments are not extracted fairly from their name, and even asking jokingly saying "Could you really be.... Sweet Pea himself?", was Stonehands.

If you look at the very post in question, then analyse the content of Pea's post above which Stonehands quoted, you'll see it contained nothing but constructed reasons why he feels Whitaker would last the distance against Hearns.

Stonehands surely was asking for a counter-punch with such a post. However, he hasn't exactly becoming too personal and outright attacking Pea.

Nobodys perfect. Pea and Stonehands certainly get tarnished with that brush.

JT put his case forward praising Stonehands for "great lengths to formulate his own opinions and views". Agreed. But everyone has different opinions on other posters views.

I happened to find Stonehands rather "touchy" when I disagreed with him a month or two back, to which I got back in return "watch to whom you provoke". Strong words. I then replied "I wasn't provoking you, just disagreeing with you".

Stonehands, no problems on that. I think you just took me the wrong way. As you later said some unknowledgeable posters were getting rather personal with you on the odd ocassion, hence the reason you were a tad suspicious.

[enquirer]

The reason tommy couldnt engage fully with benitez was because he broke his right hand in the eight,thats a fact you have omitted and which rules out the knockout for hearns...You also omit the fact that benitez had the artillery to get hearns attention (as attested to by his one punch knockout of maurice hope.) ,el radar also had one of the best defenses ever...
You also fail to take into account that benitez was a solid 147 (the hearns fight was at 154.) and was much taller and bigger than pea...
Vasquez does not even deserve a mention in the same breath as hearns,its easy for pea to avoid the offense of a guy who is not as fast as him,now lets see how hearns speed (not to mention power.) matches against that of vasquez or even jc chavez? Those guys were like molasses compared to hearns...Ray leonard couldnt engage properly with hearns early on because hearns would beat him to the punch with his speed,you think whitaker can beat tommy to the punch then dance out of range or slip his shots while being a lightweight with a big height and reach disadvantage?
And please,whitaker landing head shots would bother tommy considering the shots he took off hagler in the first two rounds without going down? Show me any major fight where whitakers power was the factor in him winning? Maybe once in his career and it wasnt against a big welter like hearns...
I dont understand why you dont appreciate the styles in this fight,you realise that tommy in his early days almost always started very fast and worked to set up that right hand,what makes you think he would just box a former lightweight midget,who is known as a pure boxer? Early on Did he box ray leonard,duran,hagler,roldan,schuler,hutchings,cuevas or dozens of others when his hands were healthy and he was not well above his natural weight? Did he not let go of his hands against nearly all of his opponents from 147 to 154? (and even most times at 160.)
Do you realise how big,powerful and fast a welter hearns was,and how small,weak punching and slower whitaker is at 147,prime or not? Tell me,was whitaker at his fastest and best at 135 or 147?
Do you not realise that of all the fighters duran faced only ONE knocked him out,and this was never done before or repeated or even closely duplicated even as duran got slower and fatter and regardless of the power or quality of the opponent..Dont you think that shows duran has an excellent defense and chin and that hearns is the one guy in history with the right mix of SPEED AND POWER to do that to duran...Now apply that anology to sweet pea and its goodnight pea.........

[Robbi]

Hearns possessed superb upperbody movement. Slipping and using his jab was what made him a great long range boxer. Whitaker changed the height and crouched when slipping incoming artillery.

Both were strong when it came to using upperbody and head movement. Just suttle differences in how they used those defensive moves, as one stood at 6' 1" and the other 5' 6".

Whitaker a bit more adjustable from the waist when spinning out of range.

[sweet_scientist]

Though it's unlikely, there's nothing rediculous in claiming that Whitaker lasts the distance with Hearns.

There are four obstacles that Whitaker faces: height, reach, speed and power.

In terms of height, Whitaker has faced tall fighters before and done ok with them (e.g. Mayweather, Pendleton, Pineda, DLH, Trinidad) but Hearns is taller than anyone he has faced. Who knows if this will cause a problem Pea can't counteract.

In terms of reach, Whitaker has taken on fighters with longer reach and beaten them in the past, e.g. Mayweather, Pendleton, Pineda and arguably DLH. But never quite the reach of Hearns. Who knows if he can get inside his reach effectively enough and get out before Hearns retaliates. It will be hard to do, no question.

In terms of speed, Whitaker has faced quick fighters and made them look silly before (e.g. DLH, McGirt) but Hearns is quicker than anyone Whitaker has ever faced, and who knows if he can evade his shots. It will force Pea to be more defensively astute than he has ever had to be.

When it comes to power, the fact of the matter is that Pea was never knocked out and though he'd be facing a superior offensive machine to any he ever faced, we don't know for sure how he would react to it. As has been said by Sweet Pea, Whitaker fought Trinidad when his defense was gone, and he took Trinidad's punches. He wasn't dodging them, he was eating 50% of whatever Trinidad threw. So we know that Whitaker is resilient. That Tito had him hurt on numerous occasions doesn't bode well though.

IMO its possible that Whitaker meets all these obstacles well enough to last the distance, but there's a lot of obstacles there, and when taken together there's plenty of reasons to suggest he'll fail one of the tests. That said, I wouldn't be shocked to see him on his feet at the end of the fight, though I would be shocked if I don't see him on the canvas at least once or twice throughout the encounter.

[chimba]

Hearns by UD or mid-to-late round TKO

The worst possible style matchup for Sweet Pea

Hearns is a worst possible style matchup for anyone..He couldnt have been the greatest without his chin

[Robbi]

Though it's unlikely, there's nothing rediculous in claiming that Whitaker lasts the distance with Hearns.

There are four obstacles that Whitaker faces: height, reach, speed and power.

In terms of height, Whitaker has faced tall fighters before and done ok with them (e.g. Mayweather, Pendleton, Pineda, DLH, Trinidad) but Hearns is taller than anyone he has faced. Who knows if this will cause a problem Pea can't counteract.

In terms of reach, Whitaker has taken on fighters with longer reach and beaten them in the past, e.g. Mayweather, Pendleton, Pineda and arguably DLH. But never quite the reach of Hearns. Who knows if he can get inside his reach effectively enough and get out before Hearns retaliates. It will be hard to do, no question.

In terms of speed, Whitaker has faced quick fighters and made them look silly before (e.g. DLH, McGirt) but Hearns is quicker than anyone Whitaker has ever faced, and who knows if he can evade his shots. It will force Pea to be more defensively astute than he has ever had to be.

When it comes to power, the fact of the matter is that Pea was never knocked out and though he'd be facing a superior offensive machine to any he ever faced, we don't know for sure how he would react to it. As has been said by Sweet Pea, Whitaker fought Trinidad when his defense was gone, and he took Trinidad's punches. He wasn't dodging them, he was eating 50% of whatever Trinidad threw. So we know that Whitaker is resilient. That Tito had him hurt on numerous occasions doesn't bode well though.

IMO its possible that Whitaker meets all these obstacles well enough to last the distance, but there's a lot of obstacles there, and when taken together there's plenty of reasons to suggest he'll fail one of the tests. That said, I wouldn't be shocked to see him on his feet at the end of the fight, though I would be shocked if I don't see him on the canvas at least once or twice throughout the encounter.

Couldn't agree more. If you read my previous analysis, It's the same as yourself, although constructed differently.

I said at the end. Stoppage, maybe points.

[sweet_scientist]

Couldn't agree more. If you read my previous analysis, It's the same as yourself, although constructed differently.

I said at the end. Stoppage, maybe points.

:good

[JohnThomas1]

The first poster to come slightly off the rails away from the actual topic being discussed "Hearns v Whitaker at 147lbs" and attack someone for being biased, stating that arguments are not extracted fairly from their name, and even asking jokingly saying "Could you really be.... Sweet Pea himself?", was Stonehands.

If you look at the very post in question, then analyse the content of Pea's post above which Stonehands quoted, you'll see it contained nothing but constructed reasons why he feels Whitaker would last the distance against Hearns.

Stonehands surely was asking for a counter-punch with such a post. However, he hasn't exactly becoming too personal and outright attacking Pea.

Nobodys perfect. Pea and Stonehands certainly get tarnished with that brush.

JT put his case forward praising Stonehands for "great lengths to formulate his own opinions and views". Agreed. But everyone has different opinions on other posters views.

I happened to find Stonehands rather "touchy" when I disagreed with him a month or two back, to which I got back in return "watch to whom you provoke". Strong words. I then replied "I wasn't provoking you, just disagreeing with you".

Stonehands, no problems on that. I think you just took me the wrong way. As you later said some unknowledgeable posters were getting rather personal with you on the odd ocassion, hence the reason you were a tad suspicious.

Can you whip up a link to this previous encounter Robbi so we can have a read.

[Robbi]

Can you whip up a link to this previous encounter Robbi so we can have a read.

I don't have it, it was a couple of months back. It was brief response from myself to one of his posts saying " you must be joking" however I can't mind accurately, then I got back "watch to whom you provoke". Very strong words which alarmed me. Instead of me firing back angrily, I took the heat out of the situation by replying back "I wasn't provoking you, just disagreeing with you".

Stonehands then replied back saying " I thought you were provoking, some people on here with a lack of knowledge get personal when they can't come up with anything decent, and your not one of them".

[JohnThomas1]

I don't have it, it was a couple of months back. It was brief response from myself to one of his posts saying " you must be joking" however I can't mind accurately, then I got back "watch to whom you provoke". Very strong words which alarmed me. Instead of me firing back angrily, I took the heat out of the situation by replying back "I wasn't provoking you, just disagreeing with you".

Stonehands then replied back saying " I thought you were provoking, some people on here with a lack of knowledge get personal when they can't come up with anything decent, and your not one of them".

I'll find it after golf then, won't be hard. Sounds pretty armless.

[Robbi]

JT. Stonehands took me the wrong way, thats about the size of it. It has been water under the bridge, and never had a problem with him ever since. Our "Whitaker v Duran" debate a few days ago was nothing but fair and constructed points back and forth objectively towards each other.

As you know JT, I'm only on here to discuss boxing.

[JohnThomas1]

Stonehands mentioned Foreman regaining the title off Moorer as the greatest sports achievement ever. You said

Originally Posted by Robbi
I can agree with you having it as the greatest win in sports, but to have it as your greatest "performance" is beyond a joke.
He said


Well, the joke's on you. And you should take care with whom you provoke.
He took your comment personally and responded, it's all pretty tame. You called his opinion on the matter "beyond a joke". You don't see how that might offend him?

[Robbi]

JT. How that can be taken personally is beyond me, totally. That was my problem, he took it personally.

"I can agree with you having it as the greatest win in sports, but to have it as your greatest "performance" is beyond a joke".

Thats disagreeing with his point, even though I said "but to have it as your greatest "performance" is beyond a joke". Doesn't even deserve a response of "And you should take care with whom you provoke".

Provoke is the word I found alarming.

Whats after that?

[Robbi]

"your an idiot" that deserves a response of "And you should take care with whom you provoke".

That kind of reply would deserve a counter back from Stonehands in the manner he did.

I'll say one thing thing JT, we are all grown up and big adults. Lets be real here, that aint provoking. Not in my book anyway, maybe my skin is thicker than others.

[Robbi]

JT. "beyond a joke". Those words on closing my response to his post were just based on how much i disagreed with his assessment on "Foreman regaining the title off Moorer as the greatest sports performance ever".

"Stonehands mentioned Foreman regaining the title off Moorer as the greatest sports achievement ever"

Nope, he said the greatest performance, not greatest achievement. As you'll see I could agree with that, but not the greatest performance.

[SugarRay]

Hearns also had excellent footwork. He would be able to move in and out of range quite easily. He could pounce like a cat. Whitaker might have superior head movement but, his body could not move as fast. The fight's not even going to be close. Either by landslide or ko.

[enquirer]

Sweet pea,we obviously disagree on our in depth points and our logic,thats fine....
However,please give me an analysis of how exactly whitaker would fight with hearns,ie would he run,dance,stand in the pocket and try to make tommy miss,try to outjab hearns,brawl,etc? Im fascinated by what method you think pea will use to try to beat hearns without getting into trouble...And if pea gets in trouble or knocked down (which you seem to be saying.) then you think hearns cannot finish him at 147?
Sweet scientist raised many points relating to what whitaker would have to overcome in relation to hearns,there is also the fact that hearns at 147/154 was pretty damn elusive himself and had the reflexes and footwork of a cat,he didnt need the upper body jinking of pea because he preferred to give himself space to outjab,outreach and outpunch his opponents rather than crowd himself and give his opponents opportunities in the pocket...The opponents that pea fought were nowhere near the style,power,speed,size or class of hearns...Yet hearns opponents were definately in the class and better than pea...
Given you think whitakers defense make him survive then you may also think floyd could stand in the pocket v hearns and survive due to his atg defense?
Do you think there is any fighter in the history of the sport that could stop whitaker at 147? Robinson,ray leonard?
Finally,name me any natural lightweight in history that you feel could go 15 with a peak 147 tommy without resorting to a totally defensive running fight and hence not really giving themselves a proper chance to win?

[achillesthegreat]

Hearns would dominate and shut out Pernell Whitaker. Whitakers defence, chin and heart would see to it he goes the full 15. Ultimately though he has NOTHING for Hearns.

[Stonehands89]

The first poster to come slightly off the rails away from the actual topic being discussed "Hearns v Whitaker at 147lbs" and attack someone for being biased, stating that arguments are not extracted fairly from their name, and even asking jokingly saying "Could you really be.... Sweet Pea himself?", was Stonehands.
That response that I wrote that you call "off the rails" -could just as easily be considered a challenge. Sweet Pea strikes me as biased. I have been accused of being biased. Senya IS biased, so much so that I jokingly said that he IS Roy himself. My asking if Sweet Pea was actually Whitaker himself is light-hearted. Sweet Pea responded with a temper tantrum. Stop defending it. His subsequent posts are the functional equivalent of kicking and screaming.


If you look at the very post in question, then analyse the content of Pea's post above which Stonehands quoted, you'll see it contained nothing but constructed reasons why he feels Whitaker would last the distance against Hearns.
I submit that Sweet Pea engages in inductive reasoning. His arguments stem from a pre-conceived conclusion. That's faulty. That's bias. He should be called to task. I did so pretty gently.

Stonehands surely was asking for a counter-punch with such a post. However, he hasn't exactly becoming too personal and outright attacking Pea.
Ahh, but Sweet Pea did... and you neglect to point that obvious fact out. Others are, but you fail to.

I invited a counter, yes, an answer to the charge. He failed to answer that post with anything substantive.

JT put his case forward praising Stonehands for "great lengths to formulate his own opinions and views". Agreed. But everyone has different opinions on other posters views.

I happened to find Stonehands rather "touchy" when I disagreed with him a month or two back, to which I got back in return "watch to whom you provoke". Strong words. I then replied "I wasn't provoking you, just disagreeing with you".

Stonehands, no problems on that. I think you just took me the wrong way. As you later said some unknowledgeable posters were getting rather personal with you on the odd ocassion, hence the reason you were a tad suspicious.
If you take care to read my posts, you will see that I appreciate good argument. At times I will challenge a poster for deficiencies that I may find in their argument. You will not see me get "touchy" unless they are full of it or they take a shot at me. There are exceptions -2 at this time- who I don't hesitate to attack because they pollute the site with posts that are not worth a pile of feces.

[Stonehands89]

You just said in a prior post that if someone else tries to get personal or comes out with ridiculous points, they are going to be countered, when in reality it is always you who is the one doing the provocation. You did it to Robbi when he owned you in a debate, and you're doing it to me because I have a differing opinion, the matter at hand not even being a big deal.

You're quite immature I have to say. But I guess it doesn't matter to you what I or anyone else thinks.
Robbi "owned" me in a debate. Do you mean where I offered the opinion that Foreman-Moorer was the greatest performance I had seen in sport's history? Did you read it or are you just lashing out again like a child?

Additionally, if I am "immature", then you are "in utero".

[Stonehands89]

How bout your boy McCallum vs Hearns at 154? I think that McCallum had the style to beat him believe it or not.
McCallum would possibly be the foil for Hearns at 154. Steward has said that McCallum gave him the toughest challenge while sparring at Kronk.

[Robbi]

Stonehands. Peace. I'm pretty sure your not looking for a reply on your previous post, because I have no motivation to do so. We have drifted away from boxing enough on this thread. It takes one to back off, and I've decided to do so. Simply to take the heat out of the situation.

[Stonehands89]

JT. "beyond a joke". Those words on closing my response to his post were just based on how much i disagreed with his assessment on "Foreman regaining the title off Moorer as the greatest sports performance ever".

"Stonehands mentioned Foreman regaining the title off Moorer as the greatest sports achievement ever"

Nope, he said the greatest performance, not greatest achievement. As you'll see I could agree with that, but not the greatest performance.
Semantics. I was extremely impressed with Foreman's force of will. It was incredible. Boxing may in the end be really about the imposition of will. Anyway... it was my opinion. It was not an "argument".

And you say it is "water under the bridge" and yet it is you who bring it up here. Was it resolved or was it not? I thought it was a miniscule thing that was over... and yet you dug it up again here.

[Stonehands89]

Stonehands. Peace. I'm pretty sure your not looking for a reply on your previous post, because I have no motivation to do so. We have drifted away from boxing enough on this thread. It takes one to back off, and I've decided to do so. Simply to take the heat out of the situation.
Sure, all done... one more shot at Sweet Diapers though, because he has gone back on his word...

[Robbi]

McCallum would possibly be the foil for Hearns at 154. Steward has said that McCallum gave him the toughest challenge while sparring at Kronk.

Yeah, those wars between both around 84/85 in the Kronk were no run of the mill sparring sessions. Steward said the sparring between McCallum and Hearns were the best sessions of combat he's even witnessed at the Kronk.

[Stonehands89]

Well I would also take care with whom I provoke, especially as Stonehands himself has claimed he could beat Barbados Joe Walcott. Seriously.
What's this --? I thought you took your ball and went home crying already.

[Robbi]

Sure, all done... one more shot at Sweet Diapers though, because he has gone back on his word...

Stonehands. I have one problem with yourself, and that problem is nothing.

How you seen Calzaghe v Kessler going next week?.

[Robbi]

Semantics. I was extremely impressed with Foreman's force of will. It was incredible. Boxing may in the end be really about the imposition of will. Anyway... it was my opinion. It was not an "argument".

And you say it is "water under the bridge" and yet it is you who bring it up here. Was it resolved or was it not? I thought it was a miniscule thing that was over... and yet you dug it up again here.

Stonehands. I should not have brung it back up. When it happened a while back, the slight problem between us was rather brief and tidied up as quickly as it developed.

It was resolved.

Book closed.

[Robbi]

Do you or do you not think you could beat Barbados Joe Walcott?

And wow are you a hypocrit or what?

Pea. Its time to call the peace. Deep down, this aint my game, and its not Stonehands' game. And I hope its not yours. Boxing is what we all have in common.

This decent thread has drifted into the unknown. While you may well feel you have to defend yourself, someone has to give ground.

I got involved, big mistake.

[Stonehands89]

Do you or do you not think you could beat Barbados Joe Walcott?

And wow are you a hypocrit or what?
Could I beat who? Who cares!
Your forgot the "e" at the end of hypocrite.

You are opening yourself up to myriad beatings, and I suspect that your youthfulness does not allow you to see this...but in the name of goodwill and fellowship I will give Robbi a nod and refrain from an assault.

Enquirer pointed out your 'alter ego' (which was juvenile) on the general forum and I think that I remember you acting the same out here a while back. It appears that you have tried to be more serious and thoughtful in your posts in the classic forum. I'll give you that.

Perhaps you can get over this and continue on the better path you have tread as of late. We'd all be better for it. As for me, I see no need to rehabilitate. We should all challenge each other in the name of quality control and that includes combating bias when it seems to be the case. I welcome it because it forces me to consider that possibility of my own bias and either amend a position or clarify an argument.

[Robbi]

KG, Brooklyn, Sues2nd, etc from the General Forum are all objective posters

Yeah, they are the best from the general forum. They do creep in here from time to time, but sadly not enough for my liking.

[enquirer]

Anybody care to do an analysis of how pernell goes the distance in this fight (whilst actively trying to win) given all the disadvantages he faces ? Thanks....

[Titan1]

Hearns Ko 2 Whitaker.

[Icemmann]

Gee, I wonder where this logic stems from.


Probably along the lines of an abstract version of Tyson ko4 prime Holmes
Just a guess though. I'd take Hearns by decision, unless Whitaker had a pit more of a punch than he had shown.

[Titan1]

Gee, I wonder where this logic stems from.

The fact that Hearns will own him from the opening bell and Whitaker has no business in the ring with a guy like that.He would be thoroughly humiliated after being coldcocked.

[Robbi]

Hearns KO2 old flabby Duran, therefore Hearns KO2 Whitaker

I think even others who pick Hearns would openly admit Whitaker lasts longer than 2 rounds. The prime Whitaker at 147lbs has a much better chance. Duran was weight drained, and rumour has it he came down from 180lbs three weeks before he shared a ring with Hearns. With Hearns' devaststing power, anything is possible. But Whitaker's far too defensively astute and smart to get caught with heavy bombs early.

A flabby Duran and a prime welterweight Whitaker are different animals.

As I've stated previously, Hearns KO or points. If I had to stick my head on the chopping block, TKO after 10.

[Titan1]

Benitez had business in there with him then? MUCH lesser fighters than Whitaker with nowhere near the defense that lasted longer than two had more business in there with him?

Well, Benitez was more than able to deal with him at the weight he fought him at. Pernell facing Tommy at 147 is like suicide.

[JohnThomas1]

Oh, OK thanks for proving that. Even though Whitaker was certainly better and more accomplished at the weight and proved himself there better than Benitez, I'm sure you're right.

:tired

Benitez vs Whitaker at 147 would be a damn hard fight. I think you're discounting Benitez a bit, no drama losing to Hearns and SRL is there?

[Doppleganger]

If Sweet Pea can't outpoint Tommy he can't win - I cannot think of a worse match-up for him. I happen to think that Pernel could last the distance but Tommy can knock out anyone if he is in the mood and the punches come off (and he doesn't break his right hand). It would not shock me at all if Tommy put down Sweet Pea for the straight 10 count. It could also be a Benitez-style slaying but with a much wider card.

Hearns by UD, KO or TKO in any round from 1 to 15. Think I covered all the bases there. :)

[Titan1]

No no no, I was saying Whitaker was more accomplished and proven at 147, to combat Titan's goofy ass saying Benitez was much better adjusted there than Whitaker. As for a matchup between the two at 147, you could certainly make the argument for Benitez.

Your boy isn't going to do nothing against Tommy.He's definitely in over his head.

[Titan1]

No, just to make a point.

[cpnasty]

Whitaker loses the fight, but early KO? Nah, I'm pretty sure you're getting that from the Duran fight. I think Whitaker lasts the distance for sure, and have good reason to think it.

Hearns by wide UD though, something like 8-4 or 9-3 with a KD or two against him.


Yep, thats about right

[Titan1]

You are making no point, you're acting like a 4 year old.

"Sweet Pea is garbage LOLZ, Hearns would Pwn him haha".

Grow up.

I never insulted you, I just stated an opinion, you can't deal with it, tough.:-(

[ripcity]

Hearns has the advantage at 147, 12 or 15 rounds.

[stuistylee]

tommy could quite possibly ko pea but a prime pea prolly lasts the distance...really bad matchup 4 sweetpea

[KOTF]

Whitaker is too small to dent Hearns. Hearns wins a runaway UD keeping him at bay w/ the 78" jab

[sugarsean]

I think that this is actually the first fight where I've picked whitaker to lose , bad style match up for Sweet Pea.

Hitman Hearns by Decision

[frankenfrank]

As good as whitaker was i cant see him being able to do anything with the taller hearns.

This is just a terrible style match for whitaker IMO.
Whitaker doesnt carry enough power at 147 to KO Hearns.

Im not sure If whitaker gets himself knocked out though unless he tries to bull through hearns trying to land some haymakers.

I see Hearns just busting him up and huring him from time to time to a clear cut one sided decision.
+1
quite about what i thought

[PbP Bacon]

Though it's unlikely, there's nothing rediculous in claiming that Whitaker lasts the distance with Hearns.

There are four obstacles that Whitaker faces: height, reach, speed and power.

In terms of height, Whitaker has faced tall fighters before and done ok with them (e.g. Mayweather, Pendleton, Pineda, DLH, Trinidad) but Hearns is taller than anyone he has faced. Who knows if this will cause a problem Pea can't counteract.

In terms of reach, Whitaker has taken on fighters with longer reach and beaten them in the past, e.g. Mayweather, Pendleton, Pineda and arguably DLH. But never quite the reach of Hearns. Who knows if he can get inside his reach effectively enough and get out before Hearns retaliates. It will be hard to do, no question.

In terms of speed, Whitaker has faced quick fighters and made them look silly before (e.g. DLH, McGirt) but Hearns is quicker than anyone Whitaker has ever faced, and who knows if he can evade his shots. It will force Pea to be more defensively astute than he has ever had to be.

When it comes to power, the fact of the matter is that Pea was never knocked out and though he'd be facing a superior offensive machine to any he ever faced, we don't know for sure how he would react to it. As has been said by Sweet Pea, Whitaker fought Trinidad when his defense was gone, and he took Trinidad's punches. He wasn't dodging them, he was eating 50% of whatever Trinidad threw. So we know that Whitaker is resilient. That Tito had him hurt on numerous occasions doesn't bode well though.

IMO its possible that Whitaker meets all these obstacles well enough to last the distance, but there's a lot of obstacles there, and when taken together there's plenty of reasons to suggest he'll fail one of the tests. That said, I wouldn't be shocked to see him on his feet at the end of the fight, though I would be shocked if I don't see him on the canvas at least once or twice throughout the encounter.


Very solid post... but again, there are too many "if" for my liking :think

Thus, I will go with the crowd: Hearns wins by stoppage