is Pernel Whitaker Overrated?

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by ushvinder, Oct 31, 2012.


Page 8 of 51
  1. Flea Man

    Flea Man มวยสากล Full Member

    82,423
    1,464
    Sep 7, 2008
    How did Nelson give him trouble?!
     
    Flea Man, Nov 1, 2012
    Flea Man, Nov 1, 2012
    #106
  2. UP93

    UP93 Active Member Full Member

    934
    0
    Jul 19, 2012
    Whitaker lost at most 6 of the 24 rounds to Ramirez and dominated for long stretches of the fights, he nearly shut Nelson out and the Chavez fight wasn't close, not even slightly, giving Chavez 4 rounds would be a stretch. Every other name you mentioned was either before Whitakers' best or after his prime. And even then the only one who really gave him real trouble were Rivera and Hurtado.
     
    UP93, Nov 1, 2012
    UP93, Nov 1, 2012
    #107
  3. KuRuPT

    KuRuPT Boxing Junkie Full Member

    8,462
    2,812
    Aug 26, 2011
    I honestly, and maybe I'm a peahugger, but I only think Whitaker lost 2 rounds at the most with Nelson. I can so no way to give him more than 2 round and I think I'm being generous.
     
    KuRuPT, Nov 1, 2012
    KuRuPT, Nov 1, 2012
    #108
  4. ushvinder

    ushvinder Active Member Full Member

    646
    1
    Oct 30, 2012
    The Emile griffith that jose napoles fought would still crush chavez at welterweight, quit overrating a 147 chavez, napoles would have handed chavez his ass. Also, I would give napoles hell of a lot more credit for beating curtis cokes at 147 then beating nelson at 135, nelson did **** all at lightweight and hes really a bottom tier atg. Suggesting that pernell's win over nelson is better than pac beating barrera, absoletly tooling cotto(i know the he was wieght ddrained excuses will come in) and a truck load of other champs is easily more impressive. Nelson did nothing at 135 and after this fight he was barely able to beat leija and lost to fenech.

    Napoles has easily beaten better fighters at 140 and 147 than whitaker did. Chavez did nothing at 147 and he wouldnt do anything at that weight anyways. Quit overrating that win against nelson, it wasnt even billed as a superfight for ****s sakes, no one cared about it, yet you are acting like its a legacy win. Napoles beat a bunch of welterweights that would realistically have been ABC champs if 3-4 belts existed back then, much better than beating up a blown featherweight that would have done **** all lightweight.

    Napoles and Whitaker are both the same size, napoles started his career fighting at 128 actually. I'm going to give more credit to the guy that beat better fighters at 140 and 147, pernell can have chavez and nelson on his resume for all i care. Curtis Cokes would destroy both in head to head situations. When you compare two fighters that are the same size, i give more credit to the guy that beat heavier fighters and the guy that has way more depth on his resume.

    I know your response will be, but Napoles has all of those losses. Well its much easier to lose when you have twice as many fights and fight on short notice, he wasnt given the opportunity to train 4-6 months for a world beater like jake rodriguez, santos cardona or louie lomelli. Napoles had excellent boxing ability and ko power, I would favour him to beat whitaker, hands down.


    Honestly, the fact that you just said whitaker beating nelson is a bigger accomplishment than anything mayweather or pac did is itself a borderline troll attempt. I think you suffer from nostalgia for every fighter from whitaker's era, and completely hate on any post-1997 fighter. Thats the real issue. If mcgirt fought today, he'd prolly beat hatton and margarito, then get his ass kicked by a berto, bradley, cotto or ortiz. He wouldnt be some dominant fighter that would reign as champ for years, mcgirt was simply a good fighter, hes not that great. Same thing with nelson, if he fought in the modern era, he prolly beats someone like morales or hamed, then gets beat up by a barrera or marquez. You probably think he would be invincible and beat everyone. You have this mindset because most pernell fans like to overrate the guys pernell fought, its called nostalgia, thinking today sucks and yesterday was always better.
     
    ushvinder, Nov 1, 2012
    ushvinder, Nov 1, 2012
    #109
  5. PhillyPhan69

    PhillyPhan69 Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    18,092
    15,557
    Dec 20, 2006
    I am perhaps the biggest nelson fan on the forum..and I would agree, although I would say 3 rounds....Pea totally controlled (if not dominated) the action. On the other side age/weight wise I don't believe Nelson was at the top of his game or in a place where he could thrive...I call this a nice win for Pea, but one that needs to be taken for what it is worth rather than the name that is attached to it.
     
    PhillyPhan69, Nov 1, 2012
    PhillyPhan69, Nov 1, 2012
    #110
  6. Flea Man

    Flea Man มวยสากล Full Member

    82,423
    1,464
    Sep 7, 2008
    Cotto wasn't weight drained IMO. Just not very good.
     
    Flea Man, Nov 1, 2012
    Flea Man, Nov 1, 2012
    #111
  7. Garrus

    Garrus Big Boss 1935-2014 Full Member

    4,909
    67
    Aug 27, 2010
    Cotto's better than Whitaker.
     
    Garrus, Nov 1, 2012
    Garrus, Nov 1, 2012
    #112
  8. ushvinder

    ushvinder Active Member Full Member

    646
    1
    Oct 30, 2012
    Im 1000% postive cotto woud beat azumah nelson head to head. When you compare smaller fighters like pac and pernell, well pac spent a large portion of his career from flyweight to featherweight, so he is smaller. I give credit to the guy that beat tougher fighters in higher weight classes. Nelson is a nice name, but at 135 and above, its not a very meaningful victory.

    I think vazquez is also being overrated like the plague, no one thought he was anything special, heck larry merchant and jim lampley treated him like he was a nobody scrub the entire time I was watching the fight. He was slow, plodding, very weak lateral movement, he probably wouldnt even beat fernando vargas or ayube kalule. I have no problem seeing mayweather outbox him to a decision, mayweather would not get stopped by this guy.:lol:
     
    ushvinder, Nov 1, 2012
    ushvinder, Nov 1, 2012
    #113
  9. Garrus

    Garrus Big Boss 1935-2014 Full Member

    4,909
    67
    Aug 27, 2010
    Yup Cotto beats Nelson.

    You're a smart guy ush. :good
     
    Garrus, Nov 1, 2012
    Garrus, Nov 1, 2012
    #114
  10. MagnaNasakki

    MagnaNasakki Boxing Junkie Full Member

    7,658
    78
    Jan 21, 2006
    I had it a shutout, so no, you aren't a Peahugger.

    I scored this fight 120-108, and I only scored Pea-Ramirez I 116-112 for Whitaker. I'm a maverick.
     
    MagnaNasakki, Nov 1, 2012
    MagnaNasakki, Nov 1, 2012
    #115
  11. KuRuPT

    KuRuPT Boxing Junkie Full Member

    8,462
    2,812
    Aug 26, 2011
    I actually think Mcgirt would beat Berto, Bradley, Cotto or Ortiz. I think McGirt would beat most people Pac or May beat.
     
    KuRuPT, Nov 1, 2012
    KuRuPT, Nov 1, 2012
    #116
  12. lora

    lora Fighting Zapata Full Member

    10,305
    544
    Feb 17, 2010
    OF course he would.McGirt was actually a very good fighter.Not just a decent\serviceable one with glaring flaws like those others.
     
    lora, Nov 1, 2012
    lora, Nov 1, 2012
    #117
  13. ushvinder

    ushvinder Active Member Full Member

    646
    1
    Oct 30, 2012
    He would beat them all consecutively and reign as champ for 4-6 years? Funny considering he lost to frankie waren, its clear he would have been inconsistent. Buddy was very good, not great, placing him in this era wouldnt make him an ATG.
     
    ushvinder, Nov 1, 2012
    ushvinder, Nov 1, 2012
    #118
  14. sweet_scientist

    sweet_scientist Boxing Junkie Full Member

    13,744
    88
    Nov 8, 2004
    The Emile Griffith that Jose Napoles fought would get outboxed by Chavez, despite the fact that Chavez was puny compared to him. He was drained as all **** at the weight and even at his best, Griffith was getting split decisions and 50:50 fights go his way all the time through his welterweight career. That win isn't even one of Napoles best considering the circumstances.

    I will say that Chavez was nothing special at 147, I agree with you there.

    The reason the Whitaker fight still adds heaps to Whitaker's legacy though is because Whitaker himself was a small guy and when both guys fought, they were roughly the same size in the ring. Big great welterweights in their prime should handle both Whitaker and Chavez, but that is besides the point.



    Again the Nelson win gets rated so highly because stylistically, it showed that Whitaker's skills were on another level. Whitaker didn't beat Nelson with size, which is what tou would expect a naturally bigger fighter to do, he outskilled him. Outskilling a naturally smaller fighter is not something that is often done. When you shut out a GREAT smaller fighter through the use of skill, it does mean something.

    Take nothing away from Napoles though, the Cokes wins were great wins and great performances by Jose. If you want to consider it better than the Nelson win, then that isn't ludicrous.

    It's good that you limited it to 140 and 147, wouldn't want Pea's slaying of the monster Vasquez to count would you? Also wouldn't want to discuss his lightweight days either hey?

    Well granting Whitaker the DLH win you have:

    DLH (arguably)............Cokes
    Chavez......................Perkins
    McGirt........................Griffith
    Hurtado......................Lewis
    Pineda.......................Hernandez
    Brazier........................Gray
    Rivera........................Grant
    ................................Muniz
    ................................Backus
    ................................Lopez
    ................................Pruitt

    So sure, Napoles has the advantage, but even then it's not a white wash.


    So we're ranking fights now on who cared about them?

    How about how many people cared about Whitaker-Chavez? You can't have it both ways.

    And Chavez might not have done well at welterweight, but I think he'd be good enough to match a Curtis Cokes. Nelson might not do much at lightweight either, but he'd beat a Corrales or Casamayor or that level fighter.

    See above, gone over it already.

    Julio Cesar Vasquez would have pushed all of Napoles welterweight opponents **** in. :good

    Napoles had tender skin and I don't know if that was wear and tear related. He seemed to carry it through his whole career. He'd be liable to the odd slip up on that alone imo.

    I'd favour Whitaker to outbox him and stand up to his power shots but picking Napoles is fair enough. He was an awesome fighter.


    Nelson wasn't unbeatable but in his prime two guys beat him, Sanchez and Whitaker. If you put that calibre of fighter in front of him, ok I'll agree that he can be beat.

    As for McGirt, he was vulnerable to certain styles (pressure, high workrate etc) so guys like Hatton and Margarito would probably do well against him.

    He'd box Cotto to pieces though. Without doubt.
     
    sweet_scientist, Nov 1, 2012
    sweet_scientist, Nov 1, 2012
    #119
  15. MagnaNasakki

    MagnaNasakki Boxing Junkie Full Member

    7,658
    78
    Jan 21, 2006
    Miguel Cotto and Timothy Bradley are fine, fine fighters. Good skills, well conditioned, and big hearts with a lot of drive.

    Berto and Ortiz are a level below. McGirt would beat them easily, most likely just on class and know-how. Ortiz is a pretty weak fighter, with a one-dimensional(if effective) attack, and Berto is so fundamentally flawed, he's already running out of time as he starts to slow down.
     
    MagnaNasakki, Nov 1, 2012
    MagnaNasakki, Nov 1, 2012
    #120
Page 8 of 51