View Full Version : Whitaker vs Rivera I


Benncollinsaad
10-09-2009, 02:57 PM
I just read the decision in this fight was controversial, a SD for Whitaker. Does anybody have it? It's not on youtube, I guess the Sweet Pea fans aren't interested in showing it.:rolleyes:

Wilfredo Rivera was underated.

Del Coqui
10-09-2009, 03:01 PM
I just read the decision in this fight was controversial, a SD for Whitaker. Does anybody have it? It's not on youtube, I guess the Sweet Pea fans aren't interested in showing it.:rolleyes:

Wilfredo Rivera was underated.

second fight was controversial, first fight was a plain robbery. sorry I dont have the fight anymore.

Benncollinsaad
10-09-2009, 04:12 PM
It seems that I've finally accomplished what I set out for-to quiet down the Whitaker-lovers!:lol1:

1SILVA
10-09-2009, 04:35 PM
I just read the decision in this fight was controversial, a SD for Whitaker. Does anybody have it? It's not on youtube, I guess the Sweet Pea fans aren't interested in showing it.:rolleyes:

Wilfredo Rivera was underated.

Yes, I agree with you. Rivera was robbed the first time they fought. i thought Whitaker won the rematch.

Silencers
10-10-2009, 04:54 AM
Yep, the first fight Rivera should've won but I think Whitaker was high on coke and trained for like 2 weeks in for the fight, he enjoyed his time on that island way too much. Second fight I thought he edged.

CCobra
10-10-2009, 01:25 PM
Whitaker was slipping by the time he fought Rivera. He was undertrained and had began taking the sorts of substances that an athlete shouldn't have been taking.

Rivera was also a very underrated fighter, he was actually pretty damn good.

oldgringo
10-10-2009, 02:47 PM
I have seen both. Rivera did very well in the first one, Whitaker looked awful but had already been abusing alcohol and cocaine by that point. Rivera fought well enough to win that fight.

The second fight was close action-wise but I thought Whitaker was a clear winner. I scored for Whitaker by 3 points or so.

Rivera was a pretty solid contender. He would have troubled many of the current Welterweights. Kind of a Carlos Quintana caliber fighters, although more of a puncher and less of a smooth boxer type. The man who stopped the comeback of Carlos Palomino.

TheGreatA
10-10-2009, 02:52 PM
I have seen both. Rivera did very well in the first one, Whitaker looked awful but had already been abusing alcohol and cocaine by that point. Rivera fought well enough to win that fight.

The second fight was close action-wise but I thought Whitaker was a clear winner. I scored for Whitaker by 3 points or so.

Rivera was a pretty solid contender. He would have troubled many of the current Welterweights. Kind of a Carlos Quintana caliber fighters, although more of a puncher and less of a smooth boxer type. The man who stopped the comeback of Carlos Palomino.

I've heard that Palomino actually had great success against Rivera at 50 years of age and rocked him although I haven't seen the fight. Pretty impressive if true.

Mosley and Vargas later struggled with Rivera as well.

oldgringo
10-10-2009, 03:22 PM
I've heard that Palomino actually had great success against Rivera at 50 years of age and rocked him although I haven't seen the fight. Pretty impressive if true.

Mosley and Vargas later struggled with Rivera as well.

I haven't seen the fight but that is impressive considering how old Palomino was.

Rivera had the misfortune of fighting alongside great Welterweights. Had he participated at his best in the early 2000's with Spinks, Judah and Margarito, he would have been more successful in my opinion.

Benncollinsaad
10-10-2009, 05:34 PM
Look, I know you guys gotta make excuses why your guy lost, but I'm really sick of it. Just admit he lost and be done with it!:nonono: According to you Whitaker fans here, he was slipping in every match he didn't win. Like he was GOD or something. You saying a prime Whitaker could NEVER lose to ANYBODY??!!

Doctor_Tenma
10-10-2009, 05:40 PM
Had to delete that to make space, gonna re-download it. Will post my scorecard. Ofcourse, Whitaker may have lost, reason why I might have deleted it :lol1:

Will download and watch later today.

TheGreatA
10-10-2009, 05:48 PM
Look, I know you guys gotta make excuses why your guy lost, but I'm really sick of it. Just admit he lost and be done with it!:nonono: According to you Whitaker fans here, he was slipping in every match he didn't win. Like he was GOD or something. You saying a prime Whitaker could NEVER lose to ANYBODY??!!

It's no secret though because he was in and out of rehab during the later part of the 1990's.

Would you give Lennox Lewis a ton of credit for beating Oliver McCall?

Benncollinsaad
10-10-2009, 05:58 PM
It's no secret though because he was in and out of rehab during the later part of the 1990's.

Would you give Lennox Lewis a ton of credit for beating Oliver McCall?

Of course not! But this was different, Whitaker didn't run around half the fight crying.

TheGreatA
10-10-2009, 06:01 PM
Of course not! But this was different, Whitaker didn't run around half the fight crying.

He was clearly performing under his normal capabilities however.

I'm not going to say that this fight shouldn't be taken into account but it means very little when discussing Pernell Whitaker's greatness. He was on the decline, which happens to all fighters, and Rivera was no bum.

IMDAZED
10-10-2009, 06:10 PM
I just read the decision in this fight was controversial, a SD for Whitaker. Does anybody have it? It's not on youtube, I guess the Sweet Pea fans aren't interested in showing it.:rolleyes:

Wilfredo Rivera was underated.

I thought Rivera won the first fight on points. But Pea at that point was a fighter in decline. He put up a solid effort to win the rematch (and even that I felt was kinda close) but he was slowing and it showed.

Benncollinsaad
10-10-2009, 06:27 PM
I thought Rivera won the first fight on points. But Pea at that point was a fighter in decline. He put up a solid effort to win the rematch (and even that I felt was kinda close) but he was slowing and it showed.

So how can anybody claim that he beat DLH then??

CCobra
10-11-2009, 03:40 AM
He was clearly performing under his normal capabilities however.

I'm not going to say that this fight shouldn't be taken into account but it means very little when discussing Pernell Whitaker's greatness. He was on the decline, which happens to all fighters, and Rivera was no bum.

Well said.

So how can anybody claim that he beat DLH then??

He trained harder against De La Hoya and won on many peoples score cards. If you can't accept that Whitaker was on the decline then you're being a complete hater.

crold1
10-11-2009, 01:16 PM
Look, I know you guys gotta make excuses why your guy lost, but I'm really sick of it. Just admit he lost and be done with it!:nonono: According to you Whitaker fans here, he was slipping in every match he didn't win. Like he was GOD or something. You saying a prime Whitaker could NEVER lose to ANYBODY??!!

It was nowhere near as controversial as some made it. It was close the first time but Whitaker winning wasn't a bad call. Rivera closed strong but didn't do much early on. Whitaker won the second bout going away.

Benncollinsaad
10-11-2009, 01:19 PM
Well said.



He trained harder against De La Hoya and won on many peoples score cards. If you can't accept that Whitaker was on the decline then you're being a complete hater.

:lol1: Hater? That breaks my heart!:rolleyes: You are being foolish if you think he won that fight. Those "people" you mention are all Whitaker-nuthuggers and Oscar-sceptics. Back then he had his share of them.

Princemanspopa
10-11-2009, 11:01 PM
Wilfredo Rivera is underrated and yet you haven't watched any of his fights,you know nothing about his career other than looking up on boxrec and finding out that he had two fights with Pernell Whitaker,with the first fight described as the following,according to boxrec

"The decision was a controversial one, and a rematch was required"


Mr boxrec ranger fails hard.

blacklodge
10-15-2009, 05:15 AM
I thought Whitaker was having his way with Rivera in their first fight until Rivera got cut and then switched to southpaw. It seemed to confuse Whitaker, which was strange. Whitaker is usually the guy making the intelligent adjustments throughout the course of the fight. Rivera held his ground and won some rounds. I don't know that he did enough to win, although I believed it at the time rooting against Whitaker. Not unlike the Diosbelys Hurtado fight, Whitaker looked looked less than impressive and the unheralded opponent looked better than everyone expected.

IMDAZED
10-15-2009, 04:57 PM
:lol1: Hater? That breaks my heart!:rolleyes: You are being foolish if you think he won that fight. Those "people" you mention are all Whitaker-nuthuggers and Oscar-sceptics. Back then he had his share of them.

I had Pea winning by three points, including the KD.

Benncollinsaad
10-15-2009, 05:53 PM
I had Pea winning by three points, including the KD.

Well, what an eye-opener!:rolleyes:

IMDAZED
10-16-2009, 09:32 AM
Well, what an eye-opener!:rolleyes:

Don't be such a girl. A lot of people thought Pea beat Oscar.

#1Assassin
10-16-2009, 09:44 AM
It seems that I've finally accomplished what I set out for-to quiet down the Whitaker-lovers!:lol1:

your such an idiot :nonono:

whitaker was washed up by then. when he fought rivera he was old, on coke and not training. u never catch the full picture of anything. i guess since tyson lost to mcbride and williams that means he sucked in the 80s. u do understand how the ageing process works dont u?

since 40 something year old duran lost to joppy he was never something special eighter?

your a mainstream fan, stop judging fighters whole career based on 2 or 3 fights. you are so ignorant its embarassing.

Benncollinsaad
10-16-2009, 09:50 AM
your such an idiot :nonono:

whitaker was washed up by then. when he fought rivera he was old, on coke and not training. u never catch the full picture of anything. i guess since tyson lost to mcbride and williams that means he sucked in the 80s. u do understand how the ageing process works dont u?

since 40 something year old duran lost to joppy he was never something special eighter?

your a mainstream fan, stop judging fighters whole career based on 2 or 3 fights. you are so ignorant its embarassing.

But Whitaker wasn't over 40 when he lost to Rivera.:rolleyes: I just hate that everybody, or nearly everybody, is putting him together with the greatest fighters ever, just because he was technically profficient and had that "kinky" style and was hard to hit. Doesn't heart, guts and strength matter at all?

IMDAZED
10-16-2009, 09:52 AM
But Whitaker wasn't over 40 when he lost to Rivera.:rolleyes: I just hate that everybody, or nearly everybody, is putting him together with the greatest fighters ever, just because he was technically profficient and had that "kinky" style and was hard to hit. Doesn't heart, guts and strength matter at all?

Of course. He had the balls to fight great fighters constantly - throughout his career. Just admit you didn't really watch him.

Benncollinsaad
10-16-2009, 09:57 AM
Of course. He had the balls to fight great fighters constantly - throughout his career. Just admit you didn't really watch him.

I have and I saw him lose to DLH, Ramirez, Rivera and possibly also Vasquez! Its you guys who refuse to see the truth. He was a good fighter yes, but not great.

#1Assassin
10-16-2009, 10:05 AM
But Whitaker wasn't over 40 when he lost to Rivera.:rolleyes: I just hate that everybody, or nearly everybody, is putting him together with the greatest fighters ever, just because he was technically profficient and had that "kinky" style and was hard to hit. Doesn't heart, guts and strength matter at all?

fighters age diffrently, hell humans age diffrently. doing coke doesnt help u stay young eighter. if u had just followed whitakers career before u spoke up u wouldnt be so ignorant on the subject and u would know he wasnt anywhere near the fighter he once was when he fought rivera.

what matters is overall ability and resume. whitaker has both in abundance and deserves to be placed amongst the very best. u watch fights at the end of his career and act like thats the legacy he left. its not. any fighter, not just whitaker u shoud follow his whole career before u make statements on his greatness.

IMDAZED
10-16-2009, 10:07 AM
I have and I saw him lose to DLH, Ramirez, Rivera and possibly also Vasquez! Its you guys who refuse to see the truth. He was a good fighter yes, but not great.

Did you see him before that? Because those were some of the last fights of his career. And he definitely beat Vasquez.

oldgringo
10-16-2009, 10:41 AM
I have and I saw him lose to DLH, Ramirez, Rivera and possibly also Vasquez! Its you guys who refuse to see the truth. He was a good fighter yes, but not great.

Probably Haugen too huh :lol1::lol1::lol1:

Benncollinsaad
10-16-2009, 10:45 AM
Did you see him before that? Because those were some of the last fights of his career. And he definitely beat Vasquez.

Ive seen him against Mayweather and Chavez. And McGirt, both times. He was good in those fights, but they were all tough fights.

Trenchant
10-16-2009, 12:21 PM
The first fight with Rivera, I saw this fight on tv live and I was tripping on how off and out of it Whitaker was. He was clearly out of shape visibly and Rivera was a good , very good fighter and Rivera definitely won.

IMDAZED
10-16-2009, 12:59 PM
Ive seen him against Mayweather and Chavez. And McGirt, both times. He was good in those fights, but they were all tough fights.

Yeah...so what's your point? He had a tough fight with a relatively prime Chavez, oh no!

Benncollinsaad
10-16-2009, 02:17 PM
Yeah...so what's your point? He had a tough fight with a relatively prime Chavez, oh no!

I thought the first McGirt fight was very close. Might've been a draw.

crold1
10-16-2009, 08:39 PM
I have and I saw him lose to DLH, Ramirez, Rivera and possibly also Vasquez! Its you guys who refuse to see the truth. He was a good fighter yes, but not great.

You started the thread saying you never saw the Rivera fight and now you have?

blacklodge
10-16-2009, 09:29 PM
Before McGirt I, you could count on one hand the amount of rounds Whitaker lost in his professional career. A hand that's missing fingers. 147 was 1 weight class too high, I think. What was he, 5'6"? He should have stayed at 140 and beat Chavez, Frankie Randall and Kostya Tszyu. Tons of good fights there. Close out his career with Zab Judah or something.
I hated his guts, still do kind of, but he was practically unbeatable pre-'95.

Benncollinsaad
10-17-2009, 08:35 AM
You started the thread saying you never saw the Rivera fight and now you have?

I have seen it since then.

CCobra
10-18-2009, 03:03 PM
I have and I saw him lose to DLH, Ramirez, Rivera and possibly also Vasquez! Its you guys who refuse to see the truth. He was a good fighter yes, but not great.

You're an absolute ****ing idiot. You saw him lose to Ramirez? You're a worse judge than Doug Tucker. NOBODY (save for the judges) saw that fight for Ramirez. Anybody who did either has an extreme hate for Whitaker (which you obviously do) or just does not know how to score a fight (which you obviously don't).

Whitaker-Ramirez I - 118-110 for Pernell Whitaker
Whitaker-Ramirez II - 120-108 for Pernell Whitaker
Whitaker-Chavez - 118-110 for Pernell Whitaker

Benncollinsaad
10-18-2009, 03:47 PM
You're an absolute ****ing idiot. You saw him lose to Ramirez? You're a worse judge than Doug Tucker. NOBODY (save for the judges) saw that fight for Ramirez. Anybody who did either has an extreme hate for Whitaker (which you obviously do) or just does not know how to score a fight (which you obviously don't).

Whitaker-Ramirez I - 118-110 for Pernell Whitaker
Whitaker-Ramirez II - 120-108 for Pernell Whitaker
Whitaker-Chavez - 118-110 for Pernell Whitaker

Those scores are joke.

catalinul
10-18-2009, 04:06 PM
Those scores are joke.

No they're not.

Benncollinsaad
10-18-2009, 04:12 PM
No they're not.

Have you SEEN the first Ramirez fight?!?! There is NO WAY Whitaker coulda won that by 8 points! He didn't even win it. Ramirez was the agressor thruout the fight. So with all do respect-don't talk crap.

catalinul
10-18-2009, 04:15 PM
You're a jokster.

Whitaker outclassed Ramirez who had like 100 more fights then him then.

Maybe not 10-2 but cetainly 9-3 or 8-4 at the least.

Benncollinsaad
10-18-2009, 04:16 PM
You're a jokster.

Whitaker outclassed Ramirez who had like 100 more fights then him then.

Maybe not 10-2 but cetainly 9-3 or 8-4 at the least.

Youre a penguin. Go catch some fish.

Benncollinsaad
10-18-2009, 04:18 PM
I know Cobra, we get along well on another forum. But he's a nuthugger and he knows it. Rivera won both fights. Time for all you Pernell-nuthuggers to accept that.

Dynamite Kid
10-18-2009, 04:42 PM
Have you SEEN the first Ramirez fight?!?! There is NO WAY Whitaker coulda won that by 8 points! He didn't even win it. Ramirez was the agressor thruout the fight. So with all do respect-don't talk crap.





He was the aggressor but this is what happened to when he came foward, he clearly! lost the first half of the fight because he was just following Whitaker around and he could not get off, he put more pressure on towards the end but he still lost the fight wide.

0.50
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/yjTHLPmfBCQ&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/yjTHLPmfBCQ&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

masta
10-18-2009, 04:49 PM
Have you SEEN the first Ramirez fight?!?! There is NO WAY Whitaker coulda won that by 8 points! He didn't even win it. Ramirez was the agressor thruout the fight. So with all do respect-don't talk crap.

You must be an idiot to call yourself a boxing fan, if you think Ramirez won.

Just because someone was the aggressor doesn't mean they win the fight.

Benncollinsaad
10-18-2009, 04:57 PM
He was the aggressor but this is what happened to when he came foward, he clearly! lost the first half of the fight because he was just following Whitaker around and he could not get off, he put more pressure on towards the end but he still lost the fight wide.

0.50
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/yjTHLPmfBCQ&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/yjTHLPmfBCQ&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Is THAT supposed to give us an outlook on the whole fight??

Dynamite Kid
10-18-2009, 05:07 PM
Is THAT supposed to give us an outlook on the whole fight??

If you have seen the fight you will know that is an example of how the first half of the fight went, it did not get much better in the second half for JLR either.

Benncollinsaad
10-18-2009, 05:34 PM
If you have seen the fight you will know that is an example of how the first half of the fight went, it did not get much better in the second half for JLR either.

No, but whose fault is that? Whitaker obviously wasn't interested in fighting that night. He thought he'd get a cheap win, didn't he? Well, nothing is for free mister!

Ramirez deserved that win, if for nothing else, than for being the agressor and trying to make it look like a fight. He did land plenty of shots, just not that many hard shots. Whoever did that to a prime Whitaker anyway??

Dynamite Kid
10-18-2009, 05:48 PM
No, but whose fault is that? Whitaker obviously wasn't interested in fighting that night. He thought he'd get a cheap win, didn't he? Well, nothing is for free mister!

Ramirez deserved that win, if for nothing else, than for being the agressor and trying to make it look like a fight. He did land plenty of shots, just not that many hard shots. Whoever did that to a prime Whitaker anyway??

He thought he'd get a cheap win, he was landing punches, JLR was not, so who is looking for a cheap win.

He deserved a win for being the aggressor :lol1:, spoken like a true fool!!

Benncollinsaad
10-18-2009, 06:27 PM
He thought he'd get a cheap win, he was landing punches, JLR was not, so who is looking for a cheap win.

He deserved a win for being the aggressor :lol1:, spoken like a true fool!!

:tool: Go find some Whitaker all night nuthugging forum.

masta
10-18-2009, 06:42 PM
No, but whose fault is that? Whitaker obviously wasn't interested in fighting that night. He thought he'd get a cheap win, didn't he? Well, nothing is for free mister!

Ramirez deserved that win, if for nothing else, than for being the agressor and trying to make it look like a fight. He did land plenty of shots, just not that many hard shots. Whoever did that to a prime Whitaker anyway??

Are you trying to be stupid on purpose?

Benncollinsaad
10-18-2009, 06:51 PM
Are you trying to be stupid on purpose?

No, are you?

Dynamite Kid
10-18-2009, 06:52 PM
:tool: Go find some Whitaker all night nuthugging forum.

No one is here is a nuthugger of Whitaker, its just you dont like Whitaker for what ever reason and you bring up laughable ridiculous opinions to put him down because you want to chastise him some more, so you see the responses you get are not from Whitaker nuthuggers but fair minded people that can speak rationally about the guy without letting biased get in the way of the topic, which is something you are clearly incapable of doing, so much so that you end up non nonsensical points of view that ruin what ever credibility you ever had. I mean you made a thread before when you had hardly even seen many Whitaker fights.

I think we call all!! see that you just a rabid hater of the man more so than this being a Whitaker nuthugging fest.

Biased idiots like you should stay in NSB because you offer no insight or rational thought to the section and you dont even watch these fights by all accounts.

masta
10-18-2009, 06:57 PM
No, are you?

I would be an idiot to not assume you were one.

I've seen your posts before and I know that you bash Whitaker. I mean, honestly, you say he deserves to lose fights because you don't like his style.

That's all I need to know to realize that you don't know anything about scoring a fight.

Benncollinsaad
10-19-2009, 07:28 AM
I would be an idiot to not assume you were one.

I've seen your posts before and I know that you bash Whitaker. I mean, honestly, you say he deserves to lose fights because you don't like his style.

That's all I need to know to realize that you don't know anything about scoring a fight.

Yawn....:bottle:

Dynamite Kid
10-19-2009, 08:06 PM
So i just scored the Whitaker vs Rivera fight and i thought Rivera won it 7-5.

Bright-Eyes
12-17-2009, 06:05 AM
round 1 whitaker
round 2 whitaker
round 3 rivera
round 4 rivera
round 5 whitaker
round 6 whitaker
round 7 rivera
round 8 rivera
round 9 whitaker
round 10 whitaker
round 11 whitaker
round 12 rivera


115-113 to Whitaker.Close fight here,there certainly is an argument for a draw or even a close decision in Rivera's way,but a robbery? I didn't see it.

Burning Desire
12-17-2009, 08:00 AM
Sorry but is this a joke thread ? Pernell Whitaker won this fight hands down, and this is from someone who has seen pretty much almost all of Pernell Whitaker's fights, including this one plenty of times.

Pernell Whitaker outboxed Jose Luis Ramirez hands down in the 1st 4 rounds, Jose Luis Ramirez made a little comeback in the middle rounds, but Pernell Whitaker regained control and easily won by 4 rounds.

And since when is just coming forward enough to win fights ? by that logic every single boxer who decides to box on the backfoot should lose then ? it has to be effective aggression, you know like actually landing punches ? cutting off the ring ? ETC.

Jose Luis Ramirez failed to do either, he constantly followed Pernell Whitaker around the ring. Looking like a lost sheep, he for certain lost this fight, and he got beat even worse in the rematch, Jose Luis Ramirez also got a gift against Manuel Hernandez.

Dynamite Kid
12-17-2009, 08:45 AM
Sorry but is this a joke thread ? Pernell Whitaker won this fight hands down, and this is from someone who has seen pretty much almost all of Pernell Whitaker's fights, including this one plenty of times.

Pernell Whitaker outboxed Jose Luis Ramirez hands down in the 1st 4 rounds, Jose Luis Ramirez made a little comeback in the middle rounds, but Pernell Whitaker regained control and easily won by 4 rounds.

And since when is just coming forward enough to win fights ? by that logic every single boxer who decides to box on the backfoot should lose then ? it has to be effective aggression, you know like actually landing punches ? cutting off the ring ? ETC.

Jose Luis Ramirez failed to do either, he constantly followed Pernell Whitaker around the ring. Looking like a lost sheep, he for certain lost this fight, and he got beat even worse in the rematch, Jose Luis Ramirez also got a gift against Manuel Hernandez.

Whitaker must be the most misunderstood fighter in Boxing history and the main reason for that seems to be that people watch his biggest fights with DLH, Tito, Chavez, Nelson and make assumptions.

If they actually took time out to watch more of his fights they would realize he was not a runner and that he was actually an entertaining fighter with immense skill level.

Im referring to the new breed of fan, not the people who are real Boxing fans.

oldgringo
12-17-2009, 01:09 PM
Whitaker must be the most misunderstood fighter in Boxing history and the main reason for that seems to be that people watch his biggest fights with DLH, Tito, Chavez, Nelson and make assumptions.

If they actually took time out to watch more of his fights they would realize he was not a runner and that he was actually an entertaining fighter with immense skill level.

Im referring to the new breed of fan, not the people who are real Boxing fans.

Yeah fairly recently I saw someone state that he was a "slick fighter with a low work rate". I believe they said, "slick movers with low work rates like him (Whitaker)......".

Prime example of someone who pretty much has it all wrong.

Dynamite Kid
12-17-2009, 02:01 PM
Yeah fairly recently I saw someone state that he was a "slick fighter with a low work rate". I believe they said, "slick movers with low work rates like him (Whitaker)......".

Prime example of someone who pretty much has it all wrong.


I know :crazy:

It gets me when people say he would make you but not counter you inbetween :lol1: he was renowned for staying in the pocket and countering, his inside/mid range game is what he was all about imo, infact he was a better inside/mid range fighter than Floyd Mayweather.

I admit against Chavez, DLH he did fought from range but you dont apply that to his whole career and say that was his style, same as you dont say Hagler from Hearns/Mugabi was Hagler's style.

Those people make most of there assumptions on the DLH, Chavez fights imo.