The classic boxer vs. slugger match. Who wins?
Printable View
The classic boxer vs. slugger match. Who wins?
I never liked Pea and was a big fan of Shane. He compiled a nice looking record at 135 but he never saw anything like Pernell at that weight. I don't think Shane catches up to him even as fast as he was. I think Pernell stays out of the way and counters Shane to death winning a clear ud.
You?
This would probably be a boring fight with a lot of holding. I think Pea had more gears then Shane and would probably win a comfortable decision.
It would not be comfortable for Whitaker. Shane was a beast at the weight but Pernell was mesmerising and almost untouchable.
A more exciting fight would be Duran v Shane.
Shane is as overrated as Tyson. Both had great physical gifts but we're dumb as boxes of rocks. Those that overwhelm with ability look great when they control. And they are inevitably overrated.
Then someone solves the puzzle and excuses fly for the rest of their careers because they are too stupid to make adjustments.
Shane hit harder relative to his opponents at 135 but that is the only difference in Shane from any era. And he dam sure wasn't knocking out Pea so it's nearly irrelevant.
Shane has never had a plan B. Pea outboxes him 8 rounds to 4. The 4 are only because Shane appears to have better rounds, a more accurate score would be 10-2
I never really bought into Shane as some lightweight phenom. Top notch ability but a bit rinse & repeat in delivery. Sometimes got frontal, telegraphed lead and often just 'showed' jab. Whitaker was just to smooth and on top at lightweight for him.
I respect all opinions on this forum (for the most part!), but I think this is a fascinating match up. Pernell is one of my favorite fighters of all time and trades out with Duran in my ranking of top lightweights ever. That being said, Shane was HUGE for that weight, was a very good boxer, and had the speed and style that would give Pea fits (think of the issues Pernell had fighting cuties like Pendelton and Hurtado).
Prime vs. Prime I feel that Pernell had that little bit extra that would help him adjust and pull the win out in the end, but Shane's speed and strength would give him trouble and make the fight uncomfortable the whole way. Buddy McGirt gave Pernell a great fight the first time around, and I feel that Shane is as good of a boxer as Buddy was but much more gifted in speed, power and athleticism. I don't see Shane having the consistency or focus to win the majority of the rounds, but I see him pushing Pernell and forcing him to reach that "final/great" level to pull out the win.
I think Whitaker wins a wide decision :cool:
Pernell outboxes him for a clear UD IMO.
You have stated some welterweight fights where Whitaker had trouble but as lightweight he was flawless.Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeeod
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeeod
No doubt Shane is a tough fight for an LW in history.
For me, LW comes down to Pernell, Duran and Shane. Duran had the better LW legacy and was champ for longer, but I have to go with Pernell against both of them.
What I'm stuck on is what happened to Mosley when he encountered range aware and proven boxers. I count + 1 on De La Hoya...then what...Collazo???
Now you are counting his fights at weltweights ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Spicoli
The Pendelton fight was at lightweight. Pea was a very dominant champ at 135, but I don't think he ever faced anyone like Shane (and vice a versa). Shane was the much larger man with a distinct advantage physically who was versatile enough to give Pea a rough time.Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterYou have stated some welterweight fights where Whitaker had trouble but as lightweight he was flawless.Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeeod
Shane's a danger from round 1 to 12, and he's going to win some rounds vs Pea, it's unavoidable. No LW in history is going to walk over Shane, he was a fucking beast at that weight.
I agree. I would give my left testicle to be able to go back in time and somehow orchestrate Shane vs. Floyd at 135. I think that is a PHENOMENAL match up, and while I lean slightly towards Floyd winning an ATG fight, I wouldn't be willing to bet either way on that fight. Shane was at his best at 135 and I don't think that Floyd was at his best at that weight, so I think it would be one of the most interesting fights to make at 135. Really, a round robin with Shane, Pea and Floyd would be fascinating... Equal to Hop, Hagler and Monzon at 160 and Ray Robinson, Ray Leonard and Floyd at 147...Quote:
Originally Posted by Beanflicker
I'd go with Floyd but Mosley is a big threat at that weight. I think Mosley would end up losing to master slicksters like Whitaker and Mayweather, but I think he'd knock out Duran.
You said the same flawed logic I illustrated in my previous post in your next. You called Shane a great boxer, he wasn't, he overwhelmed with speed. You pointed to the same things that held him back as his strengths, whenever he was asked before a fight how he would win and he said "I'm fast and I hit hard" I immediately bet on his opponents. His strengths were his flaws. He was fast and he did hit hard. But when it wasn't working he tried to punch faster and harder. That is why he never developed his skill further, he didn't need to and when he did need to he was too dumb. But that dumb was always there, it was there at 135, 147, 154. And when he lost it was excuses. He just didn't meet a guy at 135 that would make those excuses necessary. The monster Shane is like Santa Clause and Focused Zab, they don't exist. Shane looks a monster when he is in control, aggressive fighters always do. That's why every aggressive fighter in history of the sport is overrated. And when they meet their match they can't adjust. The better, more boring fighters are only remembered for their true superiority when they retire. The Muhammed Ali's and Lennox Lewis's of the world weren't thought the monsters that George Foreman and Mike Tyson were thought to be. Big George was "unbeatable" and Iron Mike was "unbeatable" until it was shown how easy it was. So is the monster Shane to Pea. 15 years from now we will recognize the true superiority. None of the at this weight or in these conditions or if if if. Pea was just better, and not slightly better, vastly better.Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeeodI agree. I would give my left testicle to be able to go back in time and somehow orchestrate Shane vs. Floyd at 135. I think that is a PHENOMENAL match up, and while I lean slightly towards Floyd winning an ATG fight, I wouldn't be willing to bet either way on that fight. Shane was at his best at 135 and I don't think that Floyd was at his best at that weight, so I think it would be one of the most interesting fights to make at 135. Really, a round robin with Shane, Pea and Floyd would be fascinating... Equal to Hop, Hagler and Monzon at 160 and Ray Robinson, Ray Leonard and Floyd at 147...Quote:
Originally Posted by Beanflicker
I can see your points, and think many are valid, but I disagree for a couple of reasons. First, when Shane fought Oscar (who was a prime HOFer at the time) his ability to make an adjustment is what won him the fight (great fight!). Against a prime Cotto, Shane once again made the necessary adjustment and began to take the fight over (too late and therefore lost the close decision). Pea was a great boxer, but he was NOT going to stop Shane. Pea had a great right jab and beautiful combinations, but Shane was HUGE for the weight and at that point (in my opinion) was still boxing effectively and not completely sold on his own hype. I stick with my original thought that it would have been a phenomenal fight that Pernell would have eventually won.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron SwansonYou said the same flawed logic I illustrated in my previous post in your next. You called Shane a great boxer, he wasn't, he overwhelmed with speed. You pointed to the same things that held him back as his strengths, whenever he was asked before a fight how he would win and he said "I'm fast and I hit hard" I immediately bet on his opponents. His strengths were his flaws. He was fast and he did hit hard. But when it wasn't working he tried to punch faster and harder. That is why he never developed his skill further, he didn't need to and when he did need to he was too dumb. But that dumb was always there, it was there at 135, 147, 154. And when he lost it was excuses. He just didn't meet a guy at 135 that would make those excuses necessary. The monster Shane is like Santa Clause and Focused Zab, they don't exist. Shane looks a monster when he is in control, aggressive fighters always do. That's why every aggressive fighter in history of the sport is overrated. And when they meet their match they can't adjust. The better, more boring fighters are only remembered for their true superiority when they retire. The Muhammed Ali's and Lennox Lewis's of the world weren't thought the monsters that George Foreman and Mike Tyson were thought to be. Big George was "unbeatable" and Iron Mike was "unbeatable" until it was shown how easy it was. So is the monster Shane to Pea. 15 years from now we will recognize the true superiority. None of the at this weight or in these conditions or if if if. Pea was just better, and not slightly better, vastly better.Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeeodI agree. I would give my left testicle to be able to go back in time and somehow orchestrate Shane vs. Floyd at 135. I think that is a PHENOMENAL match up, and while I lean slightly towards Floyd winning an ATG fight, I wouldn't be willing to bet either way on that fight. Shane was at his best at 135 and I don't think that Floyd was at his best at that weight, so I think it would be one of the most interesting fights to make at 135. Really, a round robin with Shane, Pea and Floyd would be fascinating... Equal to Hop, Hagler and Monzon at 160 and Ray Robinson, Ray Leonard and Floyd at 147...Quote:
Originally Posted by Beanflicker
Whitaker was much better than Forrest or Wright and at 135 it wouldn't be close ;)
Agree on Pea being better. One question: do you think it was skill alone that allowed those two to beat Shane or skill combined with significant size advantages? In my opinion it wasn't that Shane was outclassed, was just a case of him losing to bigger Men who could fight. Shane would enjoy a SIGNIFICANT size advantage over Pernell.Quote:
Originally Posted by La Cucaracha
Agree those 2 had bigger size advantages, especially in Forrest's case. But De La Hoya was of very similar size to Mosley and Whitaker arguably won that fight and at 33 years old fighting at welter :-\Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeeodAgree on Pea being better. One question: do you think it was skill alone that allowed those two to beat Shane or skill combined with significant size advantages? In my opinion it wasn't that Shane was outclassed, was just a case of him losing to bigger Men who could fight. Shane would enjoy a SIGNIFICANT size advantage over Pernell.Quote:
Originally Posted by La Cucaracha