Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Whats so great about Pernell Whitaker??

Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by The_Bringer View Post
    I think the main problem here is that Whitaker fought very cautiously against Chavez, Oscar, and Azumah in his 3 biggest fights.

    And many so called "fight fans" tend to only watch a few fights of any one guy's career if they weren't around for it, and then form their opinion from that.

    Clearly that's the case in this thread as evidenced by the TS's opening post and subsequent replies ; he's forming his opinion of Whitaker based solely off of a few cautious performances, and not the entire body of work.
    Yep thats the problem here.

    If you wanna know about a fighter you have not seen much of you tend yo look for his biggest fights but his biggest fights are not always reflective of the type of fighter they are. Take Marvin Hagler, some will watch his fights with Mugabi and Leonard and get the impression he was an aggressive beast that wanted to cut the ring down and put a beating on you but he was actually a counter puncher. IMO Fighters adapt different game plans when they are facing the better competition because they have to in order to win because! of the quality of opposition.

    Its like Terry Norris, he was no what i would call a big puncher but if you watch his fights with Gatti, Mugabi, Blocker you might get that impression but when all said and done he was basically a stiff puncher whom wore you down with the accumulation, well he was imo anyway.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Dynamite Kid View Post
      Yep thats the problem here.

      If you wanna know about a fighter you have not seen much of you tend yo look for his biggest fights but his biggest fights are not always reflective of the type of fighter they are. Take Marvin Hagler, some will watch his fights with Mugabi and Leonard and get the impression he was an aggressive beast that wanted to cut the ring down and put a beating on you but he was actually a counter puncher. IMO Fighters adapt different game plans when they are facing the better competition because they have to in order to win because! of the quality of opposition.

      Its like Terry Norris, he was no what i would call a big puncher but if you watch his fights with Gatti, Mugabi, Blocker you might get that impression but when all said and done he was basically a stiff puncher whom wore you down with the accumulation, well he was imo anyway.
      It's kind of like the people who say Ray Robinson had no defense when the only footage they've seen of him is the last round of the second Turpin fight where Ray was going all out to get the KO before the referee could stop the fight because of his cut.

      Poet

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Obama View Post
        I said he had some boxing knowledge. I mean, seriously, if you can't see that, it's your own pride getting in the way. It's not exactly hard to have some boxing knowledge.
        Isn't that a bit like saying the National Inquirer has some knowledge of current events?

        Originally posted by Obama View Post
        Anyone obsessed with the history section of a boxing forum has some boxing knowledge. He particularly specializes on points that discredit fighters.
        He's in the Boxing History section because he's a troll. He likes pissing people off and starting fights. He pays attention to which fighters get respect around here then makes posts smearing those fighters.

        Originally posted by Obama View Post
        Lot's of people rip on others without any foundation rooted in reality. Not the case with Foster.
        Translation: He knows how to use his Google search function to try and dig up dirt on the affor mentioned fighters.

        Originally posted by Obama View Post
        Most of his points can't be entirely refuted.
        Try common sense: It's a wonderful antidote to his ******y. This isn't a high school debate club or a law court or a political campaigne. Trying to score cheap debate points like a dumb school kid or a douchbag lawyer or politician doesn't get someone any credit with reasonably intelligent posters.

        Originally posted by Obama View Post
        The issue is mainly how he represents the points. He gets carried away with his own dialogue and uses a little too much literary jargon and hyperbole.
        Read: He's a troll.

        Originally posted by Obama View Post
        I also don't think he's Slimey Limey.
        Then you're about the only one who doesn't. It's pretty damn obvious. What do you need? A signed confession?

        Poet

        Comment

        Working...
        X
        TOP