Pernell Whitaker: how good was he really?

[DINAMITA]

Hi, I'm an avid boxing fan and trying to learn all I can about the sport, but by the time I was of age to stay up and watch the late night fights or buy The Ring, the dominant fighters of the day were RJJ, DLH, Trinidad, Barrera etc, so although I saw Sweet Pea getting spanked by Tito Trinidad when he was over-the-hill, I never saw him in his prime and don't really know much about him as a fighter. Was he a true great? I saw that he was rated #10 by The Ring in their Top 80 Fighters of the last 80 Years, so would like any opinions on the guy as he was obv an important boxer of this era.
Pound-for-pound, was he as good as say, a Sugar Ray Leonard or a Roy Jones Jr, or was he slightly below that level, like a Hopkins or De La Hoya? Would he have beaten Floyd Mayweather at lightweight?

And what was his best performance, and what was his most exciting fight??

[Rumsfeld]

Sweet Pea was DAMN GOOD!


Pound-for-pound, was he as good as say, a Sugar Ray Leonard or a Roy Jones Jr, or was he slightly below that level, like a Hopkins or De La Hoya? Would he have beaten Floyd Mayweather at lightweight?
P4P, I'd probably rate him higher than all of the aforementioned.

And yes, I believe he would have beaten Floyd (and perhaps even handily so).

And what was his best performance, and what was his most exciting fight??
I always enjoyed his rematch with McGirt.

[Sweet Pea]

Hi, I'm an avid boxing fan and trying to learn all I can about the sport, but by the time I was of age to stay up and watch the late night fights or buy The Ring, the dominant fighters of the day were RJJ, DLH, Trinidad, Barrera etc, so although I saw Sweet Pea getting spanked by Tito Trinidad when he was over-the-hill, I never saw him in his prime and don't really know much about him as a fighter. Was he a true great? I saw that he was rated #10 by The Ring in their Top 80 Fighters of the last 80 Years, so would like any opinions on the guy as he was obv an important boxer of this era.
Pound-for-pound, was he as good as say, a Sugar Ray Leonard or a Roy Jones Jr, or was he slightly below that level, like a Hopkins or De La Hoya? Would he have beaten Floyd Mayweather at lightweight?

And what was his best performance, and what was his most exciting fight??

There is plenty of footage of him on Youtube in his prime Light weight days if you wish to view some of him at his best.

Yes, there is not a poster on this site that would argue against him being a true great, he was one of the greatest to do it, and one of the most skilled. Yes, I am a big fan of his obviously, but you'll hear the same praise from more than just the likes of me. He was on the Leonard/Jones level, and above the Hopkins level. Above all but Leonard on accomplishments, which I'll lay out for you in a minute.

Yes, he would most certainly have beaten Floyd at Lightweight based on styles, as he had all of Floyd's strengths, with certain advantages, such as being a southpaw, having a higher workrate, and having a better jab. Floyd often has to adapt to his opponents as well, which isn't the case with Whitaker. Floyd wouldn't win more than 3 or 4 rounds.

I'd say his best performance was his fight against Nelson. He dominated a fellow ATG, and showed how skilled he was at dealing with pressure fighters, and he was one of the best ever, if not THE best, at fighting off the backfoot. He's had many boxing clinics though, the other fave of mine being his masterclass performance against Greg Haugen. If you want to see an exciting fight of his, watch his early-career fight with Roger Mayweather. Both fighters go down, but Pea outfights Mayweather and gives him a beating throughout.

He won titles in 4 weights, unifying at LW, moving up to take the 140 crown from the big puncher Rafael Pineda, and then winning the WW crown and defending 7 times against the likes of McGirrt, Chavez, etc. One more move up to 154 against the oft-avoided Julio Cesar Vasquez(who'd dropped Winky Wright 5 times and was avoided by Terry Norris) to take his crown. Afterwards, as he came back down in weight, he started to slip, and aside from the Oscar fight, you'll see less of the Pea that once was. The Oscar fight is another many consider a Pea win, as he was known for getting robbed, such as in his first fight with Ramirez(one of the worst robberies ever) and in his fight with Chavez.

Very stacked resume as well, he was one who wanted to fight them all, was interested in proving he was the best instead of preserving his record, unlike Mayweather.

I rate him in the top 12-15 of all time.

[Mantequilla]

He was a great fighter.Top-tier at lightweight.

[teeto]

He was brilliant defensevely, and had great offensive skills, schooled opponenets, he is fastly becoming widely regarded as the best ever lightweight in terms of h2h. Might be true, but Duran still my choice for that!!

Sometimes watching Pernell give you the sense that you were just watching an absolute boxing master at work, the clever usage of angles at its very best imo

[DINAMITA]

Cheers dudes, I'm off to youtube to witness the magic myself!

[TommyV]

I would rate him above Leonard, RJJ, Hopkins and De La Hoya p4p. He would school Mayweather at 135.

[Nobudius]

One of the greats in a deep division. Also wanted to point out that he was VERY strong, especially in the lower body. He didn't "run" at all like some people criticize him for.

A guy like Pea was sometimes his own worst enemy, inside and outside the ring. People either loved him, or hated him with a passion.

[Robbi]

Whitaker just happened to one of the finest fighters ever to grace the gloves. He was just as good as Robinson, Armstrong, Pep, and others. If Whitaker was around during the 30's and 40's he'd probably get the credit he deserves. He does get credit as a modern legend, but if he finished his career having 150-200 fights then he'd be a certain top 5 of all time.

[Samurai]

Yeah he was okay

[teeto]

Cheers dudes, I'm off to youtube to witness the magic myself!

:good :good

Let us know wot u think!!

[Ted Spoon]

Overall, there has not been a fighter as accomplished as Whitaker since he left the ring.

There is a remark difference between R. Leonard and Roy Jones Jr as packages, but as ring talents, Whitaker stands side-by-side with them.

He was the epitome of fighting off the back foot - the way he played matador to the dangerous Nelson and undefeated Chavez. In America, they look for aggressiveness, but such was Pernell's output that he fought with a kind of negative confidence, commanding ring centre with often comedically extreme lateral movement to further perplex his foe as he jabbed them as if he was going for a record.

Whitaker was not a big puncher and his best work is split over two decades, so he never really helped wave boxings popularity flag by being its 'Golden Boy' or 'Sugar man', he just casually slipped and dipped his way through quality fighters, putting on exemplary performances - the rematch against Ramirez is the most one-sided decision ever on film.

The time he truly did make big news, or got the kind of attention he deserved, was when the judges denied him of his right to take Chavez's '0'.

He is one of the stone pillars of Lightweight, but in the higher weights beckoned bigger fights, so he continued past his physical prime up until he arguably beat Oscar while the latter was in his 'Glory years' - that can never be understated.

He is a top 20 p4p fighter of all time for Ted Spoons liking.

[Sweet Pea]

Overall, there has not been a fighter as accomplished as Whitaker since he left the ring.

There is a remark difference between R. Leonard and Roy Jones Jr as packages, but as ring talents, Whitaker stands side-by-side with them.

He was the epitome of fighting off the back foot - the way he played matador to the dangerous Nelson and undefeated Chavez. In America, they look for aggressiveness, but such was Pernell's output that he fought with a kind of negative confidence, commanding ring centre with often comedically extreme lateral movement to further perplex his foe as he jabbed them as if he was going for a record.

Whitaker was not a big puncher and his best work is split over two decades, so he never really helped wave boxings popularity flag by being its 'Golden Boy' or 'Sugar man', he just casually slipped and dipped his way through quality fighters, putting on exemplary performances - the rematch against Ramirez is the most one-sided decision ever on film.

The time he truly did make big news, or got the kind of attention he deserved, was when the judges denied him of his right to take Chavez's '0'.

He is one of the stone pillars of Lightweight, but in the higher weights beckoned bigger fights, so he continued past his physical prime up until he arguably beat Oscar while the latter was in his 'Glory years' - that can never be understated.

He is a top 20 p4p fighter of all time for Ted Spoons liking.Excellent post, sir.:good

[mcvey]

Hi, I'm an avid boxing fan and trying to learn all I can about the sport, but by the time I was of age to stay up and watch the late night fights or buy The Ring, the dominant fighters of the day were RJJ, DLH, Trinidad, Barrera etc, so although I saw Sweet Pea getting spanked by Tito Trinidad when he was over-the-hill, I never saw him in his prime and don't really know much about him as a fighter. Was he a true great? I saw that he was rated #10 by The Ring in their Top 80 Fighters of the last 80 Years, so would like any opinions on the guy as he was obv an important boxer of this era.
Pound-for-pound, was he as good as say, a Sugar Ray Leonard or a Roy Jones Jr, or was he slightly below that level, like a Hopkins or De La Hoya? Would he have beaten Floyd Mayweather at lightweight?

And what was his best performance, and what was his most exciting fight??
A stroppy little sod ,but a great fighter.

[Lobotomy]

Easily the greatest defensive southpaw the sport has ever known.

[PaddyD1983]

I have Pea as #2 LW of all time behind Duran. In terms of P4P for me he's above everyone you mentioned except Leonard. Yes he would have beaten Mayweather.

Best fights - all of those mentioned above.

Only thing for me that knocks him down the P4P listings is the relatively short fight record compared to others in my top 15.

Truly an all time great!

[brownpimp88]

top 15-20 p4p of all times, but not as high as ring magazine has him.

[Ted Spoon]

Excellent post, sir.:good

Thanks very much.

[Seamus]

Overall, there has not been a fighter as accomplished as Whitaker since he left the ring.

There is a remark difference between R. Leonard and Roy Jones Jr as packages, but as ring talents, Whitaker stands side-by-side with them.

He was the epitome of fighting off the back foot - the way he played matador to the dangerous Nelson and undefeated Chavez. In America, they look for aggressiveness, but such was Pernell's output that he fought with a kind of negative confidence, commanding ring centre with often comedically extreme lateral movement to further perplex his foe as he jabbed them as if he was going for a record.

Whitaker was not a big puncher and his best work is split over two decades, so he never really helped wave boxings popularity flag by being its 'Golden Boy' or 'Sugar man', he just casually slipped and dipped his way through quality fighters, putting on exemplary performances - the rematch against Ramirez is the most one-sided decision ever on film.

The time he truly did make big news, or got the kind of attention he deserved, was when the judges denied him of his right to take Chavez's '0'.

He is one of the stone pillars of Lightweight, but in the higher weights beckoned bigger fights, so he continued past his physical prime up until he arguably beat Oscar while the latter was in his 'Glory years' - that can never be understated.

He is a top 20 p4p fighter of all time for Ted Spoons liking.

agree and disagree. a top-20 p4p'er? yes. certainly a good argument to be made.

beat mayweather? definitely.

chavez fight? i had whitaker winning by a point, so no travesty in my mind. whitaker often did not press- in any manner- for stretches during rounds. i think the ballyhoo and protests were far overboard in this fight.

de la hoya beat him going away, not easily, but clearly in my book. only whitaker apologists bring that argument up.

he got a couple of nods later in his career (Rivera anybody?) almost as make-up calls on previous close fights and out and out robberies (Ramirez).

i'm being critical but fair. all in all, a great fighter who had every benefit of prime US amateur training, fast-track fight making with big budget promotion.

[Mantequilla]

Easily the greatest defensive southpaw the sport has ever known.

In terms of all-time greatness, i'd tend to agree.

Strictly for defensive skills and general ability to make fighters miss, i do think Hilario Zapata was on a similar level to him, even though Zapata had other flaws(much weaker chin, lesser workrate etc.)that made him a less accomplished fighter overall.

I've often wondered if Whitaker was influenced by him somewhat, as his low crouching defensive moves are something that only those two share among all the top defensive fighters.zapata was very obscure in the States, so more likely a case of great minds thinking alike.

[Maxmomer]

there is not a poster on this site that would argue against him being a true great

Maybe in the general board.

[sweet_scientist]

agree and disagree. a top-20 p4p'er? yes. certainly a good argument to be made.

beat mayweather? definitely.

chavez fight? i had whitaker winning by a point, so no travesty in my mind. whitaker often did not press- in any manner- for stretches during rounds. i think the ballyhoo and protests were far overboard in this fight.

de la hoya beat him going away, not easily, but clearly in my book. only whitaker apologists bring that argument up.

he got a couple of nods later in his career (Rivera anybody?) almost as make-up calls on previous close fights and out and out robberies (Ramirez).

i'm being critical but fair. all in all, a great fighter who had every benefit of prime US amateur training, fast-track fight making with big budget promotion.

In every poll ever done on this site, and sometimes tallying over 100 voters, more people than not have had him winning the DLH fight. More people than not at ringside thought he won that fight. If it is only Whitaker apologists bringing the DLH fight into question, there must be HEAPS of Whitaker apologists out there.

[sweet_scientist]

In terms of all-time greatness, i'd tend to agree.

Strictly for defensive skills and general ability to make fighters miss, i do think Hilario Zapata was on a similar level to him, even though Zapata had other flaws(much weaker chin, lesser workrate etc.)that made him a less accomplished fighter overall.

I've often wondered if Whitaker was influenced by him somewhat, as his low crouching defensive moves are something that only those two share among all the top defensive fighters.zapata was very obscure in the States, so more likely a case of great minds thinking alike.

I'll probably watch his fights with Bassa later today, how did you see them fights going?

[Robbi]

Only thing for me that knocks him down the P4P listings is the relatively short fight record compared to others in my top 15.

Truly an all time great!

Exactly what I said earlier. When you look at Pep's record and the amount of average and poor fighters he fought over 200 fights then Whitaker and some other modern greats probably get a raw deal.

I've said it and I'll say it again. The masterclass Whitaker put on against Ramirez in their rematch, you'd be hard pushed to find Pep putting on such a display against a journeymen never mind a highly regarded world class operator.

[ripcity]

One of the best if not the best of all time. I don't see anyone besides Benny Leonard coming to beating Whitaker at lightweight. To say he was a defenseive master would be an understatement. He also had a very good offensive work rate, he had decent power at lightweight bit not as much at the higher weights. I would favor the Sugar Ray's over him at welterweight but Whitaker has the skills to beat either one.

[round15]

Sweet Pea was good enough and past his prime years to beat DelaHoya, only to get robbed by the judges.

[Ted Spoon]

agree and disagree. a top-20 p4p'er? yes. certainly a good argument to be made.

beat mayweather? definitely.

chavez fight? i had whitaker winning by a point, so no travesty in my mind. whitaker often did not press- in any manner- for stretches during rounds. i think the ballyhoo and protests were far overboard in this fight.

de la hoya beat him going away, not easily, but clearly in my book. only whitaker apologists bring that argument up.

he got a couple of nods later in his career (Rivera anybody?) almost as make-up calls on previous close fights and out and out robberies (Ramirez).

i'm being critical but fair. all in all, a great fighter who had every benefit of prime US amateur training, fast-track fight making with big budget promotion.
Whitaker made the fight into a boxing match and, quite comfortably, befuddled Chavez. It was a clear victory.

Now with De La Hoya, Whitaker did not dictate things like he used to, only landing a few here and there, but he rendered Oscar's attack nearly void. The 'Golden boy' won the fight on his aggressiveness and his promotion juggernaut; Whitaker landed better shots and Oscar tried his best to smother that.

Whoever you gave it to, it's a thumbs up to Whitaker.

The Rivera fights were closer than other earned victories that did not go in Whitakers favour, fights which took place above his best weight and years.

Manny Pacquiao very recently got away with the 'W' over Marquez in the rematch - was that just?

There are many close fights that could swing the other way, but it's the ones that really men something that we should focus on - you can't really hold anything against Whitaker - he had to pull out the stops and climb the weights to get the bigger fights.

If you also agree that he merits such a high place in your all time rankings then your grudges can't be too bad?

[SuzieQ49]

I've said it and I'll say it again. The masterclass Whitaker put on against Ramirez in their rematch, you'd be hard pushed to find Pep putting on such a display against a journeymen never mind a highly regarded world class operator.

You mean a washed up ramirez?? while whitaker put on some impressive performances, nothing can match a past his prime willie pep's masterclass boxing display he did in the sandy saddler rematch winning 10-11 out of 15 rounds against one of the greatest fighters who ever lived. he outboxed outsmarted outworked outmanuevered saddler at all times and angles. whitaker can't compare to that.

[jyuza]

Good enough to make almost everybody agreed on his career and his skills.
Very well known as the greatest defensive fighter ever along with Willy Pep.
I have him number 13 of all time and number 5 lightweight of all time.
I don't think we will ever see another fighter of his caliber.

[Seamus]

Whitaker made the fight into a boxing match and, quite comfortably, befuddled Chavez. It was a clear victory.

Now with De La Hoya, Whitaker did not dictate things like he used to, only landing a few here and there, but he rendered Oscar's attack nearly void. The 'Golden boy' won the fight on his aggressiveness and his promotion juggernaut; Whitaker landed better shots and Oscar tried his best to smother that.

Whoever you gave it to, it's a thumbs up to Whitaker.

The Rivera fights were closer than other earned victories that did not go in Whitakers favour, fights which took place above his best weight and years.

Manny Pacquiao very recently got away with the 'W' over Marquez in the rematch - was that just?

There are many close fights that could swing the other way, but it's the ones that really men something that we should focus on - you can't really hold anything against Whitaker - he had to pull out the stops and climb the weights to get the bigger fights.

If you also agree that he merits such a high place in your all time rankings then your grudges can't be too bad?

Chavez Whitaker was a pretty boring, unfulfilling fight. Whitaker won his rounds more emphatically, but not 10-8 emphatic, and gave away much time ad******g his position in the ring. Chavez plodded along, poked and prodded to little avail. I had it 7-5 Whitaker. Again, it's the nature of the 10 point must system. I cound not really give Whitaker a 10-8 round though several of his rounds were far better than Chavez' best round.

I must not have been included in that DLH poll. I agreed with the judges on that fight. I know that can be sacrilege.

Personally, I'm not a huge fan of some aspects of Whitaker's style. He had sublime moments then muddled them with showboating, pants pulling and general asshole behavior. Still, his best moments were as good as any defensive fighter who ever entered the ring.

[Ted Spoon]

Chavez Whitaker was a pretty boring, unfulfilling fight. Whitaker won his rounds more emphatically, but not 10-8 emphatic, and gave away much time ad******g his position in the ring. Chavez plodded along, poked and prodded to little avail. I had it 7-5 Whitaker. Again, it's the nature of the 10 point must system. I cound not really give Whitaker a 10-8 round though several of his rounds were far better than Chavez' best round.

I must not have been included in that DLH poll. I agreed with the judges on that fight. I know that can be sacrilege.

Personally, I'm not a huge fan of some aspects of Whitaker's style. He had sublime moments then muddled them with showboating, pants pulling and general asshole behavior. Still, his best moments were as good as any defensive fighter who ever entered the ring.

It's commendable that you openly show your dislike for how he carried himself but recognize the importance of seperating that from his accomplishments, which not many fans do.

Some close fights here and there, but he was a superbly tuned defensive fighter in the ring, at his best and beyond, which is the big point here.

[sweet_scientist]

Chavez Whitaker was a pretty boring, unfulfilling fight. Whitaker won his rounds more emphatically, but not 10-8 emphatic, and gave away much time ad******g his position in the ring. Chavez plodded along, poked and prodded to little avail. I had it 7-5 Whitaker. Again, it's the nature of the 10 point must system. I cound not really give Whitaker a 10-8 round though several of his rounds were far better than Chavez' best round.

I must not have been included in that DLH poll. I agreed with the judges on that fight. I know that can be sacrilege.

Personally, I'm not a huge fan of some aspects of Whitaker's style. He had sublime moments then muddled them with showboating, pants pulling and general asshole behavior. Still, his best moments were as good as any defensive fighter who ever entered the ring.

How did you have it 7-5, but with Whitaker only winning it by only a point?

[SuzieQ49]

Well Whitaker did beat julio Cesar Chavez, who was like a 100-0 ATG, a legacy sealer.

[Robbi]

One thing that doesn't get talked about regards to Whitaker-Chavez. During the 6th round Whitaker hit Chavez way low and a time out was called out. The low blow from Whitaker was careless and it's arguable if it was intentional or not. Chavez took a minute or two to resume. Cortez never instructed the three judges to take a point off Whitaker for the foul. However, judge Mickey Vann decided to take a point off Whitaker under his own descretion. This was wrong.

If you look at most referees take on low blows throughout a contest. They will issue a warning for the 1st and 2nd, then points off after that. I'm pretty sure that Whitaker was asked to keep them up as the fight was in motion before the blow in question happened. Cortez IMO was right not to take a point off Whitaker. Vann thought otherwise.

Here is a description of Vann's book.


Involved in more than 350 championship fights - over 100 of them world title fights - Mickey Vann is one of the world's top boxing referees. He is also one of the most controversial. Appointed as Britain's youngest star-grade referee, he found himself in front of the disciplinary committee following his first fight. The biggest night of his career - the "Battle of Britain" world heavyweight clash between Frank Bruno and Lennox Lewis in Cardiff - saw him back on the mat for a four-letter outburst heard by the world, and he was accused of taking #25,000 from Don King to fix a fight. "Give Me A Ring" covers Vann's professional refereeing career in all its glory and rewinds to his early life. The son of knife thrower and showman Hal Denver and the grandson of "The Silver King", who included the Elephant Man in his freakshows, Vann's formative years were spent between a Dickensian foster home and on the road with the circus.

[sweet_scientist]

One thing that doesn't get talked about regards to Whitaker-Chavez. During the 6th round Whitaker hit Chavez way low and a time out was called out. The low blow from Whitaker was careless and it's arguable if it was intentional or not. Chavez took a minute or two to resume. Cortez never instructed the three judges to take a point off Whitaker for the foul. However, judge Mickey Vann decided to take a point off Whitaker under his own descretion. This was wrong.

If you look at most referees take on low blows throughout a contest. They will issue a warning for the 1st and 2nd, then points off after that. I'm pretty sure that Whitaker was asked to keep them up as the fight was in motion before the blow in question happened. Cortez IMO was right not to take a point off Whitaker. Vann thought otherwise.

Here is a description of Vann's book.


Involved in more than 350 championship fights - over 100 of them world title fights - Mickey Vann is one of the world's top boxing referees. He is also one of the most controversial. Appointed as Britain's youngest star-grade referee, he found himself in front of the disciplinary committee following his first fight. The biggest night of his career - the "Battle of Britain" world heavyweight clash between Frank Bruno and Lennox Lewis in Cardiff - saw him back on the mat for a four-letter outburst heard by the world, and he was accused of taking #25,000 from Don King to fix a fight. "Give Me A Ring" covers Vann's professional refereeing career in all its glory and rewinds to his early life. The son of knife thrower and showman Hal Denver and the grandson of "The Silver King", who included the Elephant Man in his freakshows, Vann's formative years were spent between a Dickensian foster home and on the road with the circus.

I think the low blow was definitely intentional. Whitaker had no other intention than to whack Chavez in the nuts. The thing is, the fight was marred with fouling tactics the whole way through. Chavez was hitting Whitaker low many times throughout the fight and hitting on the break and Whitaker was doing some holding, hitting, spinning, hitting on the break and hitting on or just after the bell. Right before the low blow in the sixth, Chavez hits Whitaker on the hip and you can tell Whitaker resolved to hit him low and proper to give him some of his own medicine. The fight became uncompetitive from that point on.

Vann did take a point from Whitaker, even if Cortez didn't instruct him to, and incidentally, so do a lot of Chavez fans who score the 6th round for Chavez.

[Robbi]

Vann did take a point from Whitaker, even if Cortez didn't instruct him to, and incidentally, so do a lot of Chavez fans who score the 6th round for Chavez.

I also recall Chavez hitting Whitaker to the kidneys; more or less his back up close. Illegal.

Vann took a point from Whitaker when the rules state he should not have done. It's up the referee to deduct points for fouls. It's under the referees descrection only, not the judges. Thats why the referee takes the hand of the fighter being penalised and leads him to the three corners of the ring where each judge is seated and says "one point off"

Many judges at ringside will have their own personal opinion about low blows and if points should or shouldn't be taken away for fouls, but it's not their decision to deduct points as and when they see fit.

[rekcutnevets]

Pernell Whitaker: how good was he really?

He was very good.

Let's take a moment to compare the resumes of Whitaker, the 1990's best welterweight against Oscar de la Hoya, the 1990's biggist draw at welterweight.

Pernell Whitaker won his title from Buddy McGirt in 1993. McGirt was considered by most to be in the top 4 pound for pound fighters in the world at the time. It was what many felt the closest decision in Pernell's professional career. McGirt also had a problem with his left shoulder that later required surgery.

Whitaker first defended against Julio Cesar Chavez in the fall of 1993. Whitaker drew with the then best p4p fighter in the world in a fight that most felt Whitaker won. The decision was considered such an injustice Whitaker became a near house hold name.

Whitaker then faced Mandatory challenger Santo Cardona, and won a one sided decision.

In October of 1994, Whitaker granted former champion Buddy McGirt a rematch. McGirt claimed his injured shoulder was the reason for his first loss, and it would be a different fight with 2 arms. It was. Whitaker looked as though he was close to stopping McGirt on the way a wider decision win.

Whitaker's next defense came against Gary Jacobs in August of 1995. This was another mandatory, and anothe wide win.

Whitaker's first gimmie defense came next, in November of 1995. He faced former 140 lb champ Jake Rodriguez in a double header co-featuring Felix Trinidad. Trinidad had broken away from Don King, and this was supposed to be a lead up to a unification bout. Whitaker and Trinidad were both successful that night, both winning by knock out. Trinidad went back to King, and the unification never happened.

Whitaker fought Wilfredo Rivera in April of 1996, and won a questionable decision. Whitaker granted Rivera an immediate rematch and won a competitive, but clear, decision.

Whitaker defended against undefeated Diobelys Hurtado and won on a come from behind ko.

Whitaker then faced Oscar de la Hoya, and lost a disputed decision. Oscar never granted Whitaker a rematch instead he:

Defended first against David Kamau. Kamau earned his shot by losing to J C Chavez a division below.

De la Hoya then fought Hector Camacho, who must have earned his shot by beating 63 year old Ray Leonard a division above.

De la Hoya then fought Wilfredo Rivera, who earned his shot by losing to Whitaker.

De la Hoya then faced Patrick Charpentier, his mandatory

De la Hoya then fought Julio Cesar Chavez. I guess he felt like someone desereved a rematch.

De la Hoya then faced his first real test since Whitaker. De la Hoya won a disputed decision against Quartey in, at that time, what was the most entertaining fight of Oscar's career. Oscar quote after the fight: "You think it was a good fight Larry? I didn't think it was a good fight." Quartey never got another shot at Oscar.

De la Hoya went after Oba Carr next.

De la Hoya then faced Felix Trinidad and was robbed of a decision in what was the biggest fight of his career.

De la Hoya went on to beat Derrell Coley, and then lost a great fight to Shane Mosley.

[Seamus]

How did you have it 7-5, but with Whitaker only winning it by only a point?

sorry, 7-4-1.

if i never have to watch that horrible fight again it will be too soon.


ok, is everybody happy?

[sweet_scientist]

He was very good.

Let's take a moment to compare the resumes of Whitaker, the 1990's best welterweight against Oscar de la Hoya, the 1990's biggist draw at welterweight.

Pernell Whitaker won his title from Buddy McGirt in 1993. McGirt was considered by most to be in the top 4 pound for pound fighters in the world at the time. It was what many felt the closest decision in Pernell's professional career. McGirt also had a problem with his left shoulder that later required surgery.

Whitaker first defended against Julio Cesar Chavez in the fall of 1993. Whitaker drew with the then best p4p fighter in the world in a fight that most felt Whitaker won. The decision was considered such an injustice Whitaker became a near house hold name.

Whitaker then faced Mandatory challenger Santo Cardona, and won a one sided decision.

In October of 1994, Whitaker granted former champion Buddy McGirt a rematch. McGirt claimed his injured shoulder was the reason for his first loss, and it would be a different fight with 2 arms. It was. Whitaker looked as though he was close to stopping McGirt on the way a wider decision win.

Whitaker's next defense came against Gary Jacobs in August of 1995. This was another mandatory, and anothe wide win.

Whitaker's first gimmie defense came next, in November of 1995. He faced former 140 lb champ Jake Rodriguez in a double header co-featuring Felix Trinidad. Trinidad had broken away from Don King, and this was supposed to be a lead up to a unification bout. Whitaker and Trinidad were both successful that night, both winning by knock out. Trinidad went back to King, and the unification never happened.

Whitaker fought Wilfredo Rivera in April of 1996, and won a questionable decision. Whitaker granted Rivera an immediate rematch and won a competitive, but clear, decision.

Whitaker defended against undefeated Diobelys Hurtado and won on a come from behind ko.

Whitaker then faced Oscar de la Hoya, and lost a disputed decision. Oscar never granted Whitaker a rematch instead he:

Defended first against David Kamau. Kamau earned his shot by losing to J C Chavez a division below.

De la Hoya then fought Hector Camacho, who must have earned his shot by beating 63 year old Ray Leonard a division above.

De la Hoya then fought Wilfredo Rivera, who earned his shot by losing to Whitaker.

De la Hoya then faced Patrick Charpentier, his mandatory

De la Hoya then fought Julio Cesar Chavez. I guess he felt like someone desereved a rematch.

De la Hoya then faced his first real test since Whitaker. De la Hoya won a disputed decision against Quartey in, at that time, what was the most entertaining fight of Oscar's career. Oscar quote after the fight: "You think it was a good fight Larry? I didn't think it was a good fight." Quartey never got another shot at Oscar.

De la Hoya went after Oba Carr next.

De la Hoya then faced Felix Trinidad and was robbed of a decision in what was the biggest fight of his career.

De la Hoya went on to beat Derrell Coley, and then lost a great fight to Shane Mosley.

It's amazing to think that Oscar went that route after fighting Pea. I mean, his career is littered with big fights, but for some reason he took a five fight holiday after fighting Whitaker. And this at a time when he was being proclaimed as the no.1 fighter in the sport.

[sweet_scientist]

sorry, 7-4-1.

if i never have to watch that horrible fight again it will be too soon.


ok, is everybody happy?

I'm happy - so long as you acknowledge that that is a 3 point difference, not a 1 point difference. You sure you don't mean 6-5-1?

[fists of fury]

An excellent fighter that only during the last few years has really started to get the recognition he deserves.

During his prime he was always acknowledged as one of the sport's finest - usually in the top #2 P4P in the world, but most magazines would rather run a story on the likes of Chavez, Meldrick Taylor, Michael Carbajal or the heavyweights. I suppose his style was not exactly one to make the blood pump faster and he never became a household name, except to the more hardcore fans.

It's interesting to note that Boxing Illustrated was the only magazine that rated Whitaker as #1 P4P before he and Chavez met. Every other publication at the time ranked Chavez higher. BI then about a month before their fight finally placed Chavez at #1, presumably succumbing to the endless complaints from Chavez fans that Whitaker was rated higher.
As it turns out, BI were right all along.

I'll be honest and say that he was never one I'd go out of my way to watch, although from a purist point of view he was technically brilliant.

[jonesjrp4p1]

There is plenty of footage of him on Youtube in his prime Light weight days if you wish to view some of him at his best.

Yes, there is not a poster on this site that would argue against him being a true great, he was one of the greatest to do it, and one of the most skilled. Yes, I am a big fan of his obviously, but you'll hear the same praise from more than just the likes of me. He was on the Leonard/Jones level, and above the Hopkins level. Above all but Leonard on accomplishments, which I'll lay out for you in a minute.

Yes, he would most certainly have beaten Floyd at Lightweight based on styles, as he had all of Floyd's strengths, with certain advantages, such as being a southpaw, having a higher workrate, and having a better jab. Floyd often has to adapt to his opponents as well, which isn't the case with Whitaker. Floyd wouldn't win more than 3 or 4 rounds.

I'd say his best performance was his fight against Nelson. He dominated a fellow ATG, and showed how skilled he was at dealing with pressure fighters, and he was one of the best ever, if not THE best, at fighting off the backfoot. He's had many boxing clinics though, the other fave of mine being his masterclass performance against Greg Haugen. If you want to see an exciting fight of his, watch his early-career fight with Roger Mayweather. Both fighters go down, but Pea outfights Mayweather and gives him a beating throughout.

He won titles in 4 weights, unifying at LW, moving up to take the 140 crown from the big puncher Rafael Pineda, and then winning the WW crown and defending 7 times against the likes of McGirrt, Chavez, etc. One more move up to 154 against the oft-avoided Julio Cesar Vasquez(who'd dropped Winky Wright 5 times and was avoided by Terry Norris) to take his crown. Afterwards, as he came back down in weight, he started to slip, and aside from the Oscar fight, you'll see less of the Pea that once was. The Oscar fight is another many consider a Pea win, as he was known for getting robbed, such as in his first fight with Ramirez(one of the worst robberies ever) and in his fight with Chavez.

Very stacked resume as well, he was one who wanted to fight them all, was interested in proving he was the best instead of preserving his record, unlike Mayweather.

I rate him in the top 12-15 of all time.


pretty much sums him up...good post:good

[MagnificentMatt]

Best defense ever, hows that? As well as an overall great fighter, fought everyone, versatile, underrated puncher(to the body, especially)although he wasnt a hard puncher, PISTON jab, and when you put his high workrate with his defense it makes for the #1 head to head lightweight ever, and arguably overall #1 lightweight. Top 15 P4P.


I dont think a prime 135 Pea would be beaten by anyone, all time or whatever, he wouldnt lose.

Welterweight, not many outside of Tommy Hearns I'd pick to top him.. But I think Tommys on par boxing(arguably better) coupled with his height would be too much for Pea.

[Lobotomy]

Whitaker D 12 Chavez was a big enough event that David Letterman lampooned it in his next Top Ten list monologue. ("You can't have a P4P best fighter in the world nicknamed, "Sweet Pea!'") For Letterman to make Whitaker/Chavez the subject of a Top Ten list suggests that Pernell was something more than a name among hardcore fight fans at the time.

[Robbi]

Welterweight, not many outside of Tommy Hearns I'd pick to top him.. But I think Tommys on par boxing(arguably better) coupled with his height would be too much for Pea.

Leonard would have beaten him, also Robinson and Napoles. Thats just for starters.

[rekcutnevets]

Originally posted by Lobotomy
Whitaker D 12 Chavez was a big enough event that David Letterman lampooned it in his next Top Ten list monologue. ("You can't have a P4P best fighter in the world nicknamed, "Sweet Pea!'") For Letterman to make Whitaker/Chavez the subject of a Top Ten list suggests that Pernell was something more that a name among hardcore fight fans at the time.

You are correct. That decision put Whitaker on the cover of Sports Illustrated, made national news coverage, and made Whitaker a near household name.

[Ezzard]

Whittaker was hardly ever in a competitive fight. He made his wins look easy.

Often he would build an early lead and then feast on his opponents mistakes once they had to gamble to catch up.

I wasn't a fan in terms of wanting him to win. I almost alwasy wanted him to lose because he was just so dominant. But I am a fan of him in terms of boxing history.

Just to make a point though I think the LW division has some true greats who might be being sold short despite Pernell's brilliance.

Gans, Leonard, Ross, canzoneri, Armstrong and Duran are all contesting the top spots. Whittaker belongs in there with them and that's as high a praise as there can be.

I agree with Seamus' take on the Chavez fight. Whittaker won but in a rounds sense it was closer than many argue. Had the fight been at 135 I think Chavez would have fared better in terms of weight and age...

The fight with Nelson was a foregone conclusion in my book. there was no way a smaller fighter would move up and beat Whittaker.

To beat Whittaker you had to a defensive master at the same level he was (Joe Gans, Benny Leonard, etc...), or you had to be a strong swarmer able to throw 90 punches ar ound for 15 rounds (Duran, Armstrong) or you had to be an elite puncher (a mini Tommy Hearns, perhaps Ike Williams?)...

If some want to put Whittaker number 1 I'd argue against it but I'd accept that they had a fair argument.

[PaddyD1983]

If some want to put Whittaker number 1 I'd argue against it but I'd accept that they had a fair argument.

I presume you mean #1 at LW?

Yeah I'd agree, my #1 is Duran, PW is #2 in my opinion. But I wouldnt be shocked or surprised to see many put PW as #1

[Ezzard]

yes

[Swedish81]

I'm far from the most knowledgable in here but in my opinion the best boxers are the ones that make their opponents look foolish. And of what I've seen, nobody has made a fool of so many as Pernell Whitaker.

[mcvey]

One thing that doesn't get talked about regards to Whitaker-Chavez. During the 6th round Whitaker hit Chavez way low and a time out was called out. The low blow from Whitaker was careless and it's arguable if it was intentional or not. Chavez took a minute or two to resume. Cortez never instructed the three judges to take a point off Whitaker for the foul. However, judge Mickey Vann decided to take a point off Whitaker under his own descretion. This was wrong.

If you look at most referees take on low blows throughout a contest. They will issue a warning for the 1st and 2nd, then points off after that. I'm pretty sure that Whitaker was asked to keep them up as the fight was in motion before the blow in question happened. Cortez IMO was right not to take a point off Whitaker. Vann thought otherwise.

Here is a description of Vann's book.


Involved in more than 350 championship fights - over 100 of them world title fights - Mickey Vann is one of the world's top boxing referees. He is also one of the most controversial. Appointed as Britain's youngest star-grade referee, he found himself in front of the disciplinary committee following his first fight. The biggest night of his career - the "Battle of Britain" world heavyweight clash between Frank Bruno and Lennox Lewis in Cardiff - saw him back on the mat for a four-letter outburst heard by the world, and he was accused of taking #25,000 from Don King to fix a fight. "Give Me A Ring" covers Vann's professional refereeing career in all its glory and rewinds to his early life. The son of knife thrower and showman Hal Denver and the grandson of "The Silver King", who included the Elephant Man in his freakshows, Vann's formative years were spent between a Dickensian foster home and on the road with the circus.
Good information! One thing I like about Vann is that , though he is getting on he is tremendously fit and able to keep up with the action,a bit like Mercante Senior was. Really fat referees dont look that competent ,and I think they sometimes struggle when things go pear shaped

[Addie]

Sweet Pea was DAMN GOOD!


P4P, I'd probably rate him higher than all of the aforementioned.

And yes, I believe he would have beaten Floyd (and perhaps even handily so).


I always enjoyed his rematch with McGirt.

:patsch Helllllll no!

Sweet Pea isn't above Leonard on a P4P status. Hellllll no!

[McGrain]

Alex Arthur KO1

[FLINT ISLAND]

Pernell is a superb fighter

but on a pound for pund level you have to take everything into account

Lenoard was offensively better and superb defensively so i would rank him above Pernell but

[Sweet Pea]

Pernell is a superb fighter

but on a pound for pund level you have to take everything into account

Lenoard was offensively better and superb defensively so i would rank him above Pernell butLeonard was very good defensively, but not superb. He got hit far too often to be considered any kind of great defensive fighter. He holds the offense edge against Pea in terms of power, while Pea had a better jab, was better of the backfoot, etc. In that sense they're pretty close. In accomplishments, Leonard obviously has the better top wins, while Whitaker has more quantity in his resume.

[Robbi]

Leonard was very good defensively, but not superb. He got hit far too often to be considered any kind of great defensive fighter. He holds the offense edge against Pea in terms of power, while Pea had a better jab, was better of the backfoot, etc. In that sense they're pretty close. In accomplishments, Leonard obviously has the better top wins, while Whitaker has more quantity in his resume.

Leonard's defense was all about movement, more or less, and it's a nice defensive attribute to have. Whitaker had the same with some extras. His defense was more varied. He was much better inside when it came to covering up. Whitaker simply showed more ways to avoid an opponents punches than Leonard did.

Pea not only had a better jab, although some might argue Leonard's was equally as good, but he was busier behind it. It flowed with ease. Leonard tended to study the battlefield with a bit more caution before getting his jab off the mark. One of Leonard's enemies, Hearns, had a similarly fluid style to Whitaker.

Being tentative is just in some fighters DNA, but with Leonard it was combined with his smartness. He knew when to open up with punches and when not to. Leonard was never a wreckless fighter, apart from Montreal.

Whitaker IMO was a more complete fighter. Leonard without question had better power for their respective weights.

When combining everything together, Leonard ranks higher 'pound for pound' mainly based on his better resume. Benitez, Duran, Hearns, and Hagler.

Skills, I give the edge to Whitaker. H2H they are about equal.

[teeto]

Leonard was very good defensively, but not superb. He got hit far too often to be considered any kind of great defensive fighter. He holds the offense edge against Pea in terms of power, while Pea had a better jab, was better of the backfoot, etc. In that sense they're pretty close. In accomplishments, Leonard obviously has the better top wins, while Whitaker has more quantity in his resume.
I agree on the poiints on Leonard's defense, superb is too great a word to describe it.

I do think it is very close in the jab department between the two though, if all aspects are taken into account, Pea's was one of the very best at racking up poiints and setting things up, Leonard's was good in a similar way at times, but for me, Leonard was mainly an offensive fighter, his jab was very smooth how it looked and he could do relevant damage with it.

I would probablt pick Whitaker's though if pushed to pick, maybe because he used it slightly moreso

[Mantequilla]

Leonard was a complete fighter defensively imo-very well schooled-though it was never his game to be a defensive specialist.

Benitez was ironically one of his best defensive performances, against the supposed defensive master.

That is really the only fight out of Leonard's high profile bouts where he was able to comfortably fight his own kind of fight...it produced one of the best technical showcases of all-time; his integration of defence and offensive output when able to fight his own fight was top-notch.The other big wins resulted from specifically tailored tactical performances, necessary due to the extremely high level of fighter he was up against.

I think both have advantages over the other in certain areas, but were really very different fighters.Not the easiest to compare.

[Sweet Pea]

The Benitez performance was definitely Leonard's best, I agree. I thought it was a competitive bout, but not close. Leonard was a step ahead of Benitez throughout the bout.

[Robbi]

Whitaker's top five performances.

1. Azumah Nelson
2. Jose Luis Ramirez II
3. Greg Haugen
4. Julio Cesar Chavez
5. Buddy McGirt II

When it came to fluid artistic boxing with a beautiful balance of offense and defense, nobody quite did it like Whitaker.

Pep, perhaps. Robinson, maybe.

40 fights or 250 fights. The 30's, the 40's, the 80's or the 90's. Sorry folks, I could not give a monkeys.

[Sweet Pea]

Whitaker's top five performances.

1. Azumah Nelson
2. Jose Luis Ramirez II
3. Greg Haugen
4. Julio Cesar Chavez
5. Buddy McGirt III actually prefer his fight with Haugen to his performance against Ramirez. The Ramirez fight was more one-sided, but Whitaker just looked lackadaisical in it, I guess because it was so easy for him that night. Against Haugen, he faced a sterner challenge at the time I think, and a quicker fighter in Haugen, and he dominated thoroughly in it as well, this time fighting at his full potential rather than taking it easy.

[Seamus]

I'm happy - so long as you acknowledge that that is a 3 point difference, not a 1 point difference. You sure you don't mean 6-5-1?


6-5-1.

Yup, I drink a lot.

you will all be pleased my blessed passing is nigh on.

[BoppaZoo]

Excellent post, sir.:goodSweet Pea this thread has you making the same noises Homer Simpson does when he sees food.

GRRRRRRRRLLLLLLLLLLLLLAAAAAAAAARRRR.
:lol: :lol: :rofl :good

[sweet_scientist]

I actually prefer his fight with Haugen to his performance against Ramirez. The Ramirez fight was more one-sided, but Whitaker just looked lackadaisical in it, I guess because it was so easy for him that night. Against Haugen, he faced a sterner challenge at the time I think, and a quicker fighter in Haugen, and he dominated thoroughly in it as well, this time fighting at his full potential rather than taking it easy.

Both fights had their own merits.

Whitaker-Ramirez had a sort of carnivalesque feel to it. Kinda like the 15th round of Nicolino Locche vs. Antonio Cervantes replayed over and over again. It's true Whitaker looked somewhat lackadaisical in it, but he wasn't out to put a hurt or destroy Ramirez in so much as he was out to showcase his whole bag of tricks. There's more Whitaker magic in that fight than any other imo.

Whitaker-Haugen was Whitaker being all business and from a tecnhical standpoint, it was probably his most convinving display (together with his display in the Nelson fight of course).

[sweet_scientist]

Yup, I drink a lot.


Cheer up mate, Chavez did his best :D

[WestHamForever]

An elite ATG. Arguably the best defensive skills of any ATG. Excellent resume, the de facto win over Chavez is extroadinary considering Chavez is many people's ATG Mexican fighter. Sweet Pea schooled him clearly in my book.

H2H Pernell holds up well against any other ATG. He'd be a stylistic nightmare for anyone. I'd have him beating Pretty Boy in a close but clear UD. One for the purists.