Duran versus Whitaker, in detail, settled once and for all!

Afternoon gents, the floor is open to anyone who cares to pick the bones out of this one. I'm sure it's been discussed before, but I can't find whichever thread was previously dedicated to it, and in any case it'd be interesting to see if anyone's opinion on the matter has changed, or how they've come to their conclusions.

Roberto Duran and Pernell Whitaker - 'Manos de Piedra' and 'Sweet Pea.' To me, these two men are, very narrowly, the two elite, gold standard bearers at Lightweight across the whole of boxing history (What? Benny who? Nope, never heard of 'im!). Their respective primes, unfortunately, fell well over a decade apart, but it's one fantasy match up which has fascinated me for a long, long time.

So, it's the Duran of, say, roughly 1978-1979 against the Whitaker of circa 1990, over fifteen rounds (this may be vital!) for the undisputed Lightweight title of all-time.

Criminally underrated in some quarters (still!), you'll seldom find a noted boxing historian who'd consider Whitaker the equal of Duran when trying to decipher just who was the most perfect fighting specimen ever crammed in to a 135 lb body. To me, however, Pea was at the very least the equal of Roberto in most areas. In fact, so close do I find the gaps between the two of them to be (not only in terms of ability, but also in terms of career achievements and dominance), that I'd be sorely tempted to make this hypothetical match up a tie breaker to see which one deserves the crown of being the greatest Lightweight of the lot, as well as deciding which of them deserves to rank higher in a pound for pound sense, too.

If we strip away reputations, then from the outset Whitaker maybe starts as a narrow favourite here. The 'No Mas' affair, the wide defeat against the slippery Wilfred Benitez and so on. Due to these affairs, there will forever be a suspicion that Duran was vulnerable against the slicksters, the top quality counter-punchers; and as we know, Whitaker was pretty much the definition of both. However, these fights took place above Duran's best weight of 135 lb, and as such I'm not sure how much can be read in to them. On the contrary, there is a weight of evidence to suggest that Duran could excel against such a type of boxer; Ken Buchanan, fresh from being voted 'International Fighter of the Year' for 1971 ahead of the Ali-conquering Joe Frazier, no less, was as fine a technician as you could wish to see before his meeting with Duran for the WBA and lineal Lightweight titles in 1972, and Duran, still only twenty-one, kept him largely in check.

Any further suggestions that Duran was some kind of basic brawler were well and truly dismissed by his third fight with Esteban De Jesus in 1978, in which the man from Panama (who'd already gone 1-1 with Puerto Rico's De Jesus) put on an absolute boxing masterclass to unify his WBA belt with the WBC held by De Jesus. Beating Ray Leonard in 1980 was Duran's finest hour, but in terms of performance, he was never better than that third fight with De Jesus. It's this fight, I believe, which acts as Duran's finest credential for why he'd beat Whitaker.

And what of Whitaker himself? Well, he was a virtuosos (and that's putting it mildly) as a Lightweight. The blatant stitch up of the first verdict against José Luis Ramirez in 1988 aside, you could probably count just on your fingers the amount of rounds he lost in his title tenure at his best weight, which stretched from 189 to 1992. His personal highlights included schooling Ramirez to within an inch of his life in a rmatch, shutting out Greg Haugen, and stopping Juan Nazario in a single round, proving that there was a little more to his game than just defensive wizardry.

However, if I were to pick one performance to bolster his claim to be the man to trump Duran, it'd be his points win over Azumah Nelson. A career Feather / Super-Feather Nelson may have been, but he was one of the truly great ones. Whitaker didn't just beat him - he handed Nelson the single most one-sided defeat of his career. And it isn't stretching matters too greatly to say that, in twelve rounds of boxing, not once did Nelson land a truly telling shot on 'Sweet Pea.' In fact, it's long been my contention that no other fighter of a similar size in boxing history could box as many rounds as Whitaker did against the likes of Nelson, Julio Cesar Chavez and Oscar De la Hoya and get hit as infrequently as Whitaker did.

Under normal circumstances, I'd say that the early rounds would be Whitaker's here; unquestionably the quicker of the two, common sense dictates that, in theory, the greased lightening counter-puncher like Whitaker should confuse the slower-burning Duran, who was every bit the authentic fifteen round specialist and who, now and then, could take a few rounds to really get in to a groove. However, Duran was so great that he could occasionally tear this particular script up; he was out of the blocks like a whippet against Buchanan, and siezed control of that first fight with Leonard very early on, which probably was the difference between his win or a defeat - you simply can't give Leonard any of the first four rounds.

However, these were perhaps the exception rather than rule, so I'm happy to say that Whitaker holds a narrow lead on all cards after five rounds or so.

The middle stages are harder to call. Although I maintain that Whitaker owned physical gifts which could have made him a rival to the likes of Robinson and Armstrong in the race to be known as the greatest boxer of all time, there's every right to question some of his tactical decisions in bouts. Spending a little too much time trying to make the other man miss rather than looking to get off first with his own shots, clowning away closing rounds (which we'll touch upon later) and, quite importantly with regads to this fight, a tendancy to spend time on the ropes when there was nothing to gain from doing so. Now in most cases, this never came back to haunt him - his head and lateral movement was so good that he still took very few clean hits, even against the likes of Nelson, who was a very handy inside fighter himself - check out that fantastic first fight with Fenech, in which he and the Australian stuck to each other like glue for twelve rounds, if you don't believe me!).But against Duran, I think being backed up on the ropes would be a serioous problem.

Duran's work around the edges of the ring against De Jesus (III) was a thing of beauty. In particular, the way he himself bounced off the ropes, spun De Jesus at such speed and then, in a flash, was backing him up and unleashing to the body was fantastic. Whitaker could hold his own up close, without doubt, but let's be clear here - Duran wants to get the fight up close like that, whereas Pea doesn't unless it's absolutely necessary. Duran was one seriously dirty little bleeder, too; a master of working the referee's blind side, if he manages his old trick of trapping his opponents lead arm under his arm pit, rubs his ehad in to their face and throws those body shots which were, in every sense, truly breath-taking, then panic may well set in for Whitaker.

Without trying to disrespect Roberto, then, I'd argue that the flow of the middle stages relies heavily on what kind of mood Whitaker is in. If he decides to box going away and catch Duran on his way in, ala Nelson, then he remains in healthy control right up until the championship rounds. If he falls in love a little too much with his ability to put on a theatrical show of dodging, ducking and side stepping for the crowd, then he lets Duran right back in to it as the home stretch approaches. I'm inclined to believe that either possibility is real, and so maybe the fairest thing to do would be to imagine that the middle rounds are more or less evenly shared.

So, advantage still with Whitaker as the championship rounds (in this case, rounds thirteen, fourteen and fifteen) approach.

This could be the crucial factor. You pretty much know in many cases that, with Whitaker, twelve rounds was on the cards due to his lack of genuine knockout power. And he ably demonstrated, time and again, that this was no problem. However, he did have that somewhat inexplicable habit of deliberately - or so it seems - clowning away the final stanza. Most of the time, this was harmless, as he'd already built up such a wide lead on the judges' cards. However, against Chavez, for instance, it cost him what would have been the greatest win of his career (he still should have been awarded the win in any case, of course, as the decision remains bogus, but that's another story). He took the chance of doing the same thing in his first fight with Buddy McGirt, despite it being a close fight - but got away with it in that instance. However, in an even closer fight with Oscar De la Hoya in 1997, he decided to do the same yet again. That time, he ended up going home without his Welterweight title although, as was a common them with 'Sweet Pea', there were plenty who felt he'd been hard done by.

Was it fatigue, or did Whitaker just tend to switch off a little once he believed the job was done? Either way, it would surely be remiss to do this against Duran who, as a Lightweight, had limitless stamina. It's vital, I feel, to take in to account how dangerous Duran was in the closing stages of a bout; Buchanan and De Jesus (II), two of his finest victories, were both swept aside from rounds thirteen onwards, as were the likes of Fernandez and Lampkin in title fights. I can't see anything other than constant Duran pressure in those final three rounds, as Whitaker begins to throw less and less, and looks to hold and buy time, keeping Duran as far away as possible and, at times, even leaving the scoring area, which no self-respecting judge would appreciate.

However, I get the impression that, as well as scooping up the final rounds, Duran may need a knockdown to shore up the points totals - and I'm not entirely sure he'd get it. From memory, I don't think Whitaker ever hit the deck when operating in survival or defensive mode. Generally, it took a clubbing shot up close, often while he was being held and / or was off balance, throwing shots of his own. I don't think he'd even be breathing the same air as Duran at this stage. When Whitaker was dead set on survival and nothing else, he was virtually impossible to pin down. Duran sweeps up the final rounds, but fails to convert any of them in to a 10-8.

And so, where does that leave us? The cards are read out, I can imagine something along the lines of 143-142 Whitaker, 143-142 Duran, 143-142 Whitaker - and Pea is, indeed, the undisputed Lightweight champion of all time. Ridiculously close margins in what I think would be a ridiculously close fight. Even as I've written this, different outcomes and possibilities have repeatedly crossed my mind. But with a hint of gut feeling added to the logic above, I find myself thinking that the man from Virginia has the smallest of margins in his favour in this particular tussle - it may well be as close as his 51 percent to Duran's 49.

Sorry for going on, lads! But as this hypoethetical fight has been of such interest to me, I thought it better to get all permutations, outcomes and reasons I can muster out in the open, just so I can be sure that I'm happy with my decision - and I promise, I'll never go in to this particular debate again!

Anything to add, or any opinions to share, then please feel free. Am I right or wrong? Which of the two is the greater Lightweight specimen, in your eyes? Cheers for reading, everyone.

It’s a cracking thread Chris and an intriguing matchup between the third and fourth best lightweights ever. Is a truly tricky one to call, because there are so many things that are imponderables on this, was Whitaker’s tendency to clown on the ropes a flaw or just something he did if he felt he could get away with it? If it is the latter can probably be disregarded as it seems obvious he would not have pulled such a stunt against Duran.

Similarly was Duran’s capitulation in the no mas fight indicative of a flaw against those who could make you look foolish, because whilst the likes of Buchanan was certainly slick and defensively cute, he was not a guy likely to stick his chin out or bolo punch you as Ken was all business so difficult to know how Roberto would have reacted were he confronted with this at lightweight.

Is so difficult to call, there is just a sheer relentlessness about Duran at lightweight that makes him hard to back against and at some point he will make you engage and fight his fight. My leaning towards Benny Leonard to take him has always been largely been built on the thought that when that moment comes Leonard has the dig to earn Roberto’s respect and to give plenty back, am not convinced the same is true of Whitaker, also as you have already mentioned if Whitaker starts to cruise or clown in the latter stages as Roberto is getting stronger you have to think Duran is going to take the later rounds. Gun to my head I am going to go with Duran to pick up enough of the early rounds to take this one.

However saying that I have not watched a Whitaker fight in an age because as decent as he is I do find I have to be in the right mood for him.

Thanks Jeff, some great points there. Can totally understand why you'd plump for Duran, particularly over a fifteen-rounder. Time was, I'd have gone for the same and, though I've gone for Whitaker by a microscopic margin, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the overwhelming majority of contributors go for the Panamanian.

It's interesting that you have neither inside your top two Lightweights as well, mate. Benny and Gans ahead of the pair of them, I presume?

Was a joke the top two mate. I do have Leonard one, but probably have Duran second. Will have to give Gans and Whitaker some thought for third.

Ah right, I suspect a painstaking article such as this has robbed me of my ability to pick up on humour at this time of the day...

No need to revisit Gans and Whitaker to see who ranks higher, in any case - it's Pea.

love it when you psot these beasts. Will get stuck into this over lunch mate

Great write up, and you've backed everything up very well.

I think I'd lean towards Duran more often than not because Whitaker would have to win absolutely all of a round to make it surely his, and a large amount of the fight to secure the win. Duran could lose most of a round and make it his with a smaller amount of hurtful punches at any time. Granted, against Whitaker the chances of this happening get slimmer, but over 15 I think at least a couple of rounds necessary to Whitaker's win could be suddenly turned around by one solid shot from Roberto.

There's also the point that Duran really only needs ten seconds to win. It's likely a distance fight, but it's physically possible that Duran could knock out Whitaker. I'm not sure Whitaker could knock out Duran if he had anything less than a sledgehammer with him.

I certainly wouldn't want to put money on it, but with Duran being such a talented and ruthless offensive fighter with no apparent weakness and also a savvy defensive fighter he'd have the right tools in his arsenal to find a way past Whitaker. I don't think there's any lightweight I'd pick over Duran though.

Great points regarding the equalizer of Duran's power, JBW. As you say, while it's perhaps unlikely, there's always some degree of chance that Duran can stop Whitaker, whereas there's not a single hope in hell of Whitaker stopping Duran.

I also find your point about Duran maybe nicking the odd round here or there, when perhaps he shouldn't, by virtue of being able to land big in a flash very interesting, too.

I do tend to think that, from a technical and styles perspective, Whitaker has the beating of Duran, but as I also alluded to in the article, he could be guilty of coasting when he thought the pressure in the round / fight was off. If he makes the same tactical errors here then you're right, there's every chance that Duran could throw a hurtful flurry in the closing stages to steal the odd round which he'd have otherwise lost.

Thanks for posting, anyway.

I would see it as one of those intensely subjective fights that can throw up any and all kind of scorecards. I dont see either fighter dominating the other and would expect the majority of round to be close and very contrasting styles so it would come down to what one favours or which fighter if any nicked it. Often in these kind of fights the cards can vary drastically even though overall concensus is the fight was close with neither fighter winning convincingly.

If I had to favour one with a gun to the head it would probably be Duran ainly because I just think his style tends to make it easier to give him rounds that are close, and I think most round would be. Its a bit of a cop out answer but its one of those fihts Im not sure there is a definative winner and if you ran it numerous times you proably end up getting numerous different scorecards.

In a battle of quality against quantity of quality you have to favour Duran to get the decision, Whitaker doesn't pose the same stylistic threat to him than Leonard or Benitez north of 135lbs. One thing you have slightly overlooked here though Chris is Durans own defensive brilliance which would negate Whitakers offensive work. It's a close fight but don't think Whitaker has the work rate or power to stop Duran pushing him back.

Thanks for stopping by, Ghosty.

Not really a case of overlooking Duran's defensive capabilities, for me; he was extremely able in this department, but realistically speaking, it's not an area where he's going to get the better of Whitaker. In his prime championship years, De Jesus did show that he could be tagged and pinned down with a sound jab now and then, whereas Whitaker, once he got on the world stage, still seemed to be able to avoid punches with the unconcerned air of a man strolling through the park. Duran (and this is not to discredit him at all, by the way) needed to rely on his toughness and ability to take a shot many times after moving through the weights, whereas Whitaker never really did.

Absolutely nothing wrong with Duran's defence, but it's not the factor which is going to win him this fight, at least in my eyes.

You just the vital thing after moving through the weights he relied on his toughness but less so at lightweight. In the pocket and inside there's no better offensive fighter than Duran defensively.

I see Duran winning this more often than not

Duran struggled with a few slippery fighters but at higher weight class vs guys that normally had height and reach advantages. Whittaker was the same height as Duran with similar reach (not completely sure Duran is maybe an inch bigger) so won't be dominated easily from the outside. He is also a lot bigger and a lot stronger at 135. He was relentless, an animal and offensively was flawless, using his heavy hands, grante chin, natural strength, inside skill to bully and pull his opponents across the ring

Whitaker was brilliant and made you look awful and would definitely split people's opinions with sharp counters and ability to not get caught with big shots. The problems I have with Pernell is that as the fight gets rough and Pernell gets caught on the inside, he can start to admire his work which gives him great defence but can hurt his offence which will gift Duran rounds base don work rate

I'll go against the concensus here, and opt for Sweet Pea by a close but comfortable decision. Basing this on Duran struggling with slippery boxers (yes they were at higher weights) and Whittaker was a good a slippery boxer as you can get. I can see Whittaker being able to cope with what Duran brings to the table more easily than I can the other way round, but it's a horrible one to call really- the unstoppable force trying to hit the unhittable object.

in a former life, i used to do some copywriting, the first thing you're taught is how to edit and reduce the word count without altering the meaning. Applying this logic i would read chris's article and rewrite it as this:

duran v whittaker: a pickem.

A very interesting analysis chris... i would never have a bet on the outcome of this, far too hard to call

I'd put Pernell in my top 10 p4p ATG and pick him against any other lightweight in history, but think Duran had the perfect style to beat him: a murderous punching swarmer with limitless stamina and an iron jaw.

I just think he ignores and avoids much of what Whittaker throws at him, never gets discouraged and makes him run, fight and spoil every minute of every round.

Duran by a close, but fair UD, with Whittaker looking fairly beat up by the final bell.

Thanks for the continue responses, lads. Good and fair points from the lot of you.

As the general feeling seems to be that it'd be mightily close either way, then I don't mind being in the minority by giving the slightest of edges to Whitaker. The great thing about pondering this match up is that the two of them were both utterly dominant Lightweight champions, but in vastly different ways.

I still think it's interesting, however, that Rowley pointed out that he has to be in a certain mood to watch Whitaker. Personally, I think he was sensational to watch, but at the same time I can understand why he's such an acquired taste. I think, at first glance, it's easier to appreciate Duran in action than it is Whitaker, to the point where I'd say that you really need to become a major fan of 'Sweet Pea' to realise just how damn good he was.

As I've said before, it took me a while to fully appreciate just what he could do in the ring - there was so much more to him than what first met the eye. When you've got Azumah Nelson and Oscar De la Hoya throwing six or seven punch combinations and hitting nothing but thin air (and, in Nelson's case, being cleanly countered over and over again), then you know you've got some seriously freakish gifts.

I guess my general point is that Whitaker is a hell of a lot closer to the Ray Leonard and Duran company than a lot of people give him credit for, if indeed he is behind them at all. At Lightweight, you could argue that his opposition was equal, or perhaps even a shade superior, to Duran's.

milkyboy wrote:in a former life, i used to do some copywriting, the first thing you're taught is how to edit and reduce the word count without altering the meaning. Applying this logic i would read chris's article and rewrite it as this:

duran v whittaker: a pickem.

I might try that with my next colour line greats article. Could have got Kid Norfolk down to - Kid Norfolk good, racism bad.

You guys clearly know nothing about boxing. Whitaker was clearly a Sky hype job and Duran was better than him in every single way and was from the golden era of boxing (which just happens to be some indeterminite time prior to the era of whoever I don't like). If you understood boxing you would know that. I mean some people on here think that Audley and Haye would beat Marciano but they just don't know anything about boxing. Lennox Lewis, Lennox Lewis Lennox Lewis, Lennox Lewis, Lennox Lewis, Lennox Lewis, Lennox Lewis, Lennox Lewis.

P.S. great article, Chris. Like the majority, I would take Duran to win a tight decision but I woldn't be placing a bet on it and you make a persuasive argument for Whitaker.

I had a spare hour last night and recreated this fight on fight night champion.

I was sweet pea and the rating was on GOAT.

Duran dropped me in the first round, badly hurt me in the third (ooof) but was largely outboxed by Pernell until a late rally around rounds 9&10. Unfortunately for Duran he shipped a lot of punishment in those rounds and was dropped in the 11th by a straight left and stopped in the 12th with a brilliant flurry of punches ending with a brutal left uppercut.

Sweet Pea KO 12.

FACT

Cheers Superfly, glad you enjoyed it.

As a side note, I was wondering when / if Gordy would appear to remind us that, had Whitaker collided with a "real world class fighter who didn't need Sky to hype him up" in Hatton at 140 lb at some stage, Pea would have been lucky to win a round before being knocked out in the middle stages, as it goes.

Moving over slightly, I think the battle to be known as the greatest Lightweight of the lot is a three-way shootout between these two and, of course, Benny Leonard. Anyone got a good argument for Benny?

Time and a lack of accessible research materials does not really allow me to do Benny the justice he deserves but I have him top Chris and will do my best to explain why. Firstly I believe stylistically he had just about everything, was as slick defensively as you’d hope to meet but could trade if the circumstances called for it and was not without power (only guy to ever stop Welsh), was also tactically without peer, worth remembering it was Leonard who gave Tunney the key to beating Greb.

I also genuinely believe his era stands favourable comparison with any of his rivals and the likes of Ritchie, Welsh, Kilbane, Kansas and Dundee were as good as anything Duran, Sweet Pea or Gans (i’ll include him even if you won’t Chris!) fought in their era and in Tendler he perhaps has a better single opponent than any of those guys can boast.

In an era when fighters fought with increased regularity to go nearly seven years unbeaten as champion is staggering. The one thing you could perhaps say for others is they boast more wins at higher weight classes, however would question how relevant this is when assessing the best lightweight and even in this Leonard has some success, won a newspaper decision of Kid Lewis and but for a rush of blood would have beaten Jack Britton for the welterweight title.

For me Leonard is almost an amalgamation of Duran and Whitaker, had the power and grit of Duran with the defensive skills of Whitaker but possessed a greater tactical awareness than either.

A great case made for Benny there, Jeff.

On paper, I agree that Leonard's era was certainly the strongest in terms of top opposition and big names, but what bugs me a little is that the likes of Kilbane and Dundee were natural Featherweights, and both managed to take decisions off him. That said, Benny was pretty young when some of these fights took place, but once they got to the cusp of world class I'm not sure I can see Duran or Whitaker losing to any 126 pounder. The fact that so few of Benny's title fights were observed under full championship conditions in another quibble I have, albeit a very, very minor one. Winning records against Welsh, Britton, Tendler, Kansas etc is enough to remove any doubt about Leonard's right to feature in this discussion.

Having said that, you may well be absolutely bang on the money with your theory that Leonard was the most complete fighter of the select bunch we're debating. I'd say that Benny is a little closer to Whitaker than Duran in that respect, but with the bonus of having, at least, fairly decent knockout power, which wasn't really Pernell's strong suit. Duran hated not being able to get up close and inside, and had a tendancy to get extremely dirty when he couldn't, so there's a chance that Benny could do exactly what Ray did to the Panamanian in their second bout.

I remember having this debate on the old 606 with Klutey, with both of us noting that there is a great deal of evidence to suggest that, by 1979 when he left the division, the general consensus amongst most boxing scholars was that Duran had done more than enough to cement his place as the greatest Lightweight ever. I think this is significant, firstly because it's unusual that such high praise is heaped upon a fighter while their career is still only at its midway stage, and secondly because there were a few of those aforementioned scholars who'd actually seen Leonard in action some five decades or so before.

I'd have no issue with anyone going for Leonard or Duran for that matter. For years, I considered it a straight shootout between the pair, but as time has passed I've decied that Whitaker has forced the pair of them to budge along and deserves to gatecrash the discussion as well. Stick the three of them (and you can even slot Gans in there Rowley, if you must!) in any order you like and I wouldn't grumble too much. Razor-thin margins, I think.

Duran by close but clear UD over 8, 10, 12 or 15 rounds.

Could have sworn I saw you back Whitaker to beat Duran just the other day, Az!

Would hope this goes without saying Chris but I reserve the right to change my opinion should I discover at a later point Lennox Lewis disagrees with me.

But of course, Jeff. Was just hoping that Az would show up and give my claim a little extra support. Should have known you can never rely on that man!

I don't think I did. Pernell was a class operator. But Duran was a different animal altogether. Greatly under appreciated boxing skills. Many think of him as a simple but effective brawler. Not a chance. Simple brawlers do not have long careers. He hardly took many punches and made opponents miss. He would be too much for Pernell.

rowley wrote:

milkyboy wrote:in a former life, i used to do some copywriting, the first thing you're taught is how to edit and reduce the word count without altering the meaning. Applying this logic i would read chris's article and rewrite it as this:

duran v whittaker: a pickem.

I might try that with my next colour line greats article. Could have got Kid Norfolk down to - Kid Norfolk good, racism bad.

Nice try rowley, bit verbose... 'Norfolk enchance'

milkyboy wrote:

rowley wrote:

milkyboy wrote:in a former life, i used to do some copywriting, the first thing you're taught is how to edit and reduce the word count without altering the meaning. Applying this logic i would read chris's article and rewrite it as this:

duran v whittaker: a pickem.

I might try that with my next colour line greats article. Could have got Kid Norfolk down to - Kid Norfolk good, racism bad.

Nice try rowley, bit verbose... 'Norfolk enchance'

In my defence I've never made a living doing it, I am but an amateur. Just wait till you see the length of the thread I am working on at the minute, is an editing geeks wet dream mate.

... As someone with a well deserved rep for seldom using 1 word when 10 will do, it was with a certain mirth and irony that I butchered my minions' copy.

I look forward to your next colourline masterpiece in all it's wordy glory, and will try and keep my hands out of my trousers whilst salivating over it

I think the arguments for Whitaker edging Duran are pretty convincing at first glance, especially when using comparable opponents. Sweet Pea beat all time great Julio Cesar Chavez sr on all but the official judges scorecards, frustrating the bullish and normally lethally accurate Chavez, nullifying his potent inside work and making him look amateurish on the outside. The comparisons between Chavez and Duran are obvious, endurance, toughness, inside fighting being the most obvious. When we add in the fact that Duran lost clearly at Light Middleweight to a defensive slickster in Wilfred Benitez as well as being frustrated to the point of 'no mas' against Leonard and it seems that Sweet Pea is the clear winner on paper. However, there are several key differences that I believe make these conclusions less solid than they initially appear.

1. At Lightweight Duran was twice the athlete of Chavez when Whitaker faced him. I am referring specifically to his fleetness of foot. Chavez's footwork in terms of his abillity to stalk opponents was fantastic, but he was a typically flat footed fighter, keeping his feet on the ground to generate more torque for those lethal body shots. Duran at lightweight was considerably swifter and capable of combining his flat footed body assaults with more vigorous pursuit of his opponents.
2. Duran, in my opinion, is a much better outside fighter than Chavez. The aforementioned fleetness of foot that he had in his youth, combined with a decent jab meant that, whilst he preferred the inside, he was perfectly capable of boxing outside as well. Duran showed this versatility in all his greatest victories and it is one of the keys to his potent offensive arsenal.
3. Whitaker is small. This may not be the most scientific point, but the fact is that height and reach were important for Leonard and Benitez in keeping Duran at a distance. Again, not my strongest point but needed to be made I feel.

Obviously no-one was trying to make a complete and perfect analogy between Duran and Chavez, but I hope that I've highlighted some areas in which I believe Duran would do better than the reasonably comparable Chavez.

sittingringside wrote:I think the arguments for Whitaker edging Duran are pretty convincing at first glance, especially when using comparable opponents. Sweet Pea beat all time great Julio Cesar Chavez sr on all but the official judges scorecards, frustrating the bullish and normally lethally accurate Chavez, nullifying his potent inside work and making him look amateurish on the outside. The comparisons between Chavez and Duran are obvious, endurance, toughness, inside fighting being the most obvious. When we add in the fact that Duran lost clearly at Light Middleweight to a defensive slickster in Wilfred Benitez as well as being frustrated to the point of 'no mas' against Leonard and it seems that Sweet Pea is the clear winner on paper. However, there are several key differences that I believe make these conclusions less solid than they initially appear.

1. At Lightweight Duran was twice the athlete of Chavez when Whitaker faced him. I am referring specifically to his fleetness of foot. Chavez's footwork in terms of his abillity to stalk opponents was fantastic, but he was a typically flat footed fighter, keeping his feet on the ground to generate more torque for those lethal body shots. Duran at lightweight was considerably swifter and capable of combining his flat footed body assaults with more vigorous pursuit of his opponents.
2. Duran, in my opinion, is a much better outside fighter than Chavez. The aforementioned fleetness of foot that he had in his youth, combined with a decent jab meant that, whilst he preferred the inside, he was perfectly capable of boxing outside as well. Duran showed this versatility in all his greatest victories and it is one of the keys to his potent offensive arsenal.
3. Whitaker is small. This may not be the most scientific point, but the fact is that height and reach were important for Leonard and Benitez in keeping Duran at a distance. Again, not my strongest point but needed to be made I feel.

Obviously no-one was trying to make a complete and perfect analogy between Duran and Chavez, but I hope that I've highlighted some areas in which I believe Duran would do better than the reasonably comparable Chavez.

I was going to post something similar. Stylistically you can see why people could use the Chavez 'Draw' as a guage on how Whitaker will deal well with Duran. However, Duran was better than Chavez in almost every way. He had better footwork, heavier hands (just), better outside skills, better variety of punches, better inside skill and most importantly his much better defence. Whitaker had a field day with Chavez but he lost a couple rounds where he looked to not get hit but neglected his offence and Duran would exploit this more than chavez could

Thanks for contributing, guys.

As a sidenote, I'm glad to see that most are in agreement that Whitaker did indeed whip Chavez, and whipped him good 'n' proper. Was discussing that fight with someone whose opinion I really respect the other day, and was alarmed to find him saying that he felt the draw was justified.

I watched the fight again myself not long ago and, in fact, I actually ended up scoring it even more favourably for Whitaker. Had scored it twice before and felt that something like 116-112 (or 116-113 at the very least) was a fair reflection of the event, but upon seeing it again I found myself thinking that a margin as wide as five or six points was in order. Chavez didn't get a look in at any time after the half way stage, aside from the twelfth which Whitaker just danced through.

The Ramirez 'loss' was a worse decision in terms of how badly at odds the cards were with what actually unfolded in the ring, but in terms of importance to legacy and standing, it's the rank injustice of the Chavez verdict which bothers me most when Whitaker is discussed. The hitherto unbeaten Chavez would have been the icing on a great cake and it was stolen away from him.

Genuinely believe that being given the win his efforts deserved would have resulted in him being given the acclaim he deserves more readily, or at least helped in that matter.

Two extremely bad decisions, the Ramirez and Chavez ones. The one thing that I would add, and this in no way excuses the poor nature of the decisions, is that Pernell sometimes just didn't help himself. He had this habit of getting wrapped up in his own uncanny ability to avoid blows, and forgot to throw his own. I love Whitaker's defensive technique and the verve with which he pulled it off, but I am perhaps a bit old fashioned in that I believe that boxing is still mostly about, ahem, punching people.

Agree in general, sitting. Getting too wrapped up in making De la Hoya miss and look bad in doing so, and neglecting a constant attack, is exactly what cost Whitaker the decision in that fight, too. From a technical point of view, he had Oscar beaten all ends up. It's a fight that he really did throw away, although I still think that a draw would have been the fairest result in that one. To that end, once again, you could argue that he was unlucky.

He certainly could have been busier against both Ramirez and Chavez, but then again, Mayweather has slipped in to that bad habit once or twice before, too. Each time he's been lucky enough to have a set of sensible judges, whereas Whitaker wan't afforded that, it seems (although there was no 'decision' involved in Ramirez I, as it was simply a blatant stitch up - without doubt the most horrendous verdict ever returned in a world title bout).

Oh, he could have knocked Ramirez out twice and still lost a clear decision

I'm one of the smallest of minorities who don't think the Chavez decision was a rank injustice, he only has himself to blame for not getting the decision that night, he could and should have done more.

Can't agree there, Ghosty. The judges take the blame, not Whitaker.

He outpunched and outlanded Chavez by wide margins - Chavez couldn't get off. So how can it be that Whitaker needed to do more? Rounds 6 to 11, he put on a masterclass and did it with a very impressive output. If Whitaker didn't do enough to win that fight and win it well, then I'd have to ask what Chavez possibly did to earn the draw. He was handed a lesson.

How did you actually score the fight?

I have Whitaker winning but only by 115-113, might be because I can't stand hi style but I don't find him easy to score for.

Fair enough, mate. I just don't see how you can condemn the Pacquiao-Marquez decision last year, for instance (and so did I, by the way) but then say that Whitaker wasn't anything other than robbed against Chavez. Whitaker was, at the very least, level after five or six, and after that it's virtually impossible to give Chavez anything apart from the twelfth, perhaps, and that was only because Whitaker took the round off (which I bet he regrets now!).

Seems that we can all agree that Whitaker's style worked against him now and then, be it for the right or totally wrong reasons. It's odd to think that, in some ways, you could argue that he underachieved, despite being surely the greatest left-hander of all time. As Teddy Atlas said, if you can box thirty-six rounds against the likes of a prime Nelson, Chavez and De la Hoya without taking a meaningful punch, and you don't end up being called the greatest boxer of all time, then there's something wrong!

I had Pernell winning pretty easily to be honest. A clear robbery if there ever was one. Not as bad as the Ramirez scandal though. He won at least 11 rounds in that fight.

88Chris05 wrote:Can't agree there, Ghosty. The judges take the blame, not Whitaker.

He outpunched and outlanded Chavez by wide margins - Chavez couldn't get off. So how can it be that Whitaker needed to do more? Rounds 6 to 11, he put on a masterclass and did it with a very impressive output. If Whitaker didn't do enough to win that fight and win it well, then I'd have to ask what Chavez possibly did to earn the draw. He was handed a lesson.

How did you actually score the fight?

Hi Chris, think you may have already covered this below now, but I wanted to query this point. Manny clearly outpunched and outlanded Bradley by considerable margins, but weren't you one of the people that scored it to Bradley? Or at least close enough for you not to view the result as controversial?

I may be wrong, memory's fuzzy, just curious.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:Can't agree there, Ghosty. The judges take the blame, not Whitaker.

He outpunched and outlanded Chavez by wide margins - Chavez couldn't get off. So how can it be that Whitaker needed to do more? Rounds 6 to 11, he put on a masterclass and did it with a very impressive output. If Whitaker didn't do enough to win that fight and win it well, then I'd have to ask what Chavez possibly did to earn the draw. He was handed a lesson.

How did you actually score the fight?

Hi Chris, think you may have already covered this below now, but I wanted to query this point. Manny clearly outpunched and outlanded Bradley by considerable margins, but weren't you one of the people that scored it to Bradley? Or at least close enough for you not to view the result as controversial?

I may be wrong, memory's fuzzy, just curious.

Ha. Good point. Chris???

Ha! Well I'd start off by saying that I don't fully trust those HBO punch stats where Pacquiao is involved - remember that 'Pacman nuthuggery on HBO' video that was posted on here? Lampley and his cohorts were screaming "straight left by Pacquiao right on the chin!" whenever he threw, even though half of them were missing by a foot.

That said, even those who screamed 'robbery' in that one must concede that he didn't, in any way at all, deal with Bradley as completely as Whitaker dealt with Chavez. Moreover, I have revisited Bradley-Pacquiao, as I said I would, and while I still don't think it was the landslide that some have made it out to be, I accept that I probably had a wee bit of a judging off night (it's happened to all of us!) with my original 6-5-1 for Bradley. Something like 7-5 or 6-5-1 to Pacquiao looked more appropriate upon a second and then third viewing.

Bradley was able to contain Pacquiao for long spells. Chavez couldn't do anything with Whitaker.

Let's be honest......If it's in America and not in 100 degree heat in Panama you'd find it hard to give Duran a prayer!!!

Whittaker one of the most naturally skilled fighters I've seen in my lifetime would run rings around the guy....

Whittaker had enough to outbox a Duran like clone in Chavez at welter and the top quality mcgirt.....

split decision....Whittaker!!

119-109
118- 110
111-117...........The hispanic judge!!

Chavez had similar qualities to Duran but lacked his cuteness and defensive awareness, not really any are where I would say Chavez is superior.

Chavez had a better chin............and I'm sure he wouldn't have been totally exposed by a jab like he was against Hearns.....

amateur night...

He was well and truly exposed when he came up against speedsters on their game while he at no point faced punchers as hard hitting as Duran, the chin argument seems based entirely on being flattened by Hearns at 154lbs and being knocked down by De Jesus at 135lbs.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Chavez had a better chin............and I'm sure he wouldn't have been totally exposed by a jab like he was against Hearns.....

amateur night...

...because you need Chavez' chin to handle Pernell's awesome power.