I guess it would depend on what you look for in great defense. Mayweather has a technical, fundamental great defense, Sweet Pea was just unbelievably elusive. I would go with Whitaker slightly just because of the caliber of opponent he made look absolutely foolish.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Mayweather's Defense vs. Whitaker's
Collapse
-
-
Originally posted by Cotto-Rulez View PostBoth were great, Pernell relied more on athleticism, Floyd more on pure technique and reaction punches. It's 50/50.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Obama View PostWhitaker..by a fair bit. Floyd's top notch defense will last longer tho, as he's more fundamental in his approach.
This is no knock on Floyd tho being inferior to Whitaker in this department. Floyd's offense is clearly better than Whitaker's, much more so than Whitaker's defense is better than Floyd's.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by bojangles1987 View PostI guess it would depend on what you look for in great defense. Mayweather has a technical, fundamental great defense, Sweet Pea was just unbelievably elusive. I would go with Whitaker slightly just because of the caliber of opponent he made look absolutely foolish.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jiddu Dali View Posthe made them look foolish yes by moving like a snake...but he didnt land punches in return while doing all that jumping around. Mayweathers defense allows him to be effectively offensive @ the same time. I mean Whitaker and Naseem Hamed had a similar defensive styles....just clowning, flashy stuff.
Hamed was open all the time, and relied 100% of his reflexes. He leaned back, thats it.
Whitaker could slip, block, duck, roll with punches, he could almost run backwards at times like he did against a prime Oscar.
The only similarity is that they were both showman, and clowned around.
I think thats the main difference between Floyds effective defence, and Whitakers flashy defence....Floyd is 100% focused on not getting hit. Whereas Whitaker would gamble and clown around, and sometimes that would lead him to getting caught, even dropped.
Whitaker took more risks, and therefore got hit more. Floyd just wants the win, and locks up on the inside, and stays out of range on the outside.
I believe if Whitaker didnt want to be hit at all, he would be just as effective as Floyd.
Comment
-
people always talk about how Whitaker's defense was flashier, but thats not entirely true. thats what people remember him for, but he did very subtle defensive manuevers in there, especially on the inside.
Whitaker also threw about twice as many punches as Mayweather did, which matters a little.
its hard to say who had the 'better' defense, because it depended on the situation.
Comment
-
Originally posted by blackirish137 View PostWhitaker also threw about twice as many punches as Mayweather did, which matters a little.
Poet
Comment
-
Mayweather has better defense because he's defense first.
Whitaker actually boxed and used great defense at the same time.
Hopkins also has a great defense.
Overall though, Mayweather has the best defense only because he puts that above everything else. One day this will be his down fall if he fights someone who doesn't sit in the middle of the ring and let him pot shot. Oscar almost made this a reality.
Comment
Comment