is Pernel Whitaker Overrated?

it isnt ludicrous, its common sense that curtis cokes is a better win than nelson because whitaker and napoles are the exact same size. Go tell teddy atlas, larry merchant or any other boxing personality that whitaker's win over azumah is so prestigious and his resume is deeper than napoles, im sure they would laugh and not respond.

I would probably even rank cokes above nelson, his resume is much better. Just because ring ranks nelson higher doesnt make it the end all to be all. Cokes has more wins and much deeper wins, stopping rodriguez is hell of a lot more impressive than beating wilfredo gomez at a higher weight.

Sure make more hyperboles about vasquez and promote him as something he isnt, at the end of the day he wont be regarded as much because he isnt. Napoles beat better fighters than whitaker and he had legit power. Pernell had to fight the way he did because he couldnt ko elite fighters. He was a defensive wizard with good offensive output but lack of power is a huge liability.

Chavez would do good enough against cokes? Man you just dont stop do you. The same guy who struggled mightly against laporte and lockridge, was losing a whole fight to taylor until the controversial stoppage, would now be a rough test against a hall of fame lineal welterweight even though chavez's style doesnt exactly translate well against bigger opponents. When you fight a guy 3 weight classes bigger than you, you have to be an excellent boxer/mover with great defense. Chavez's style of cutting the ring off and being a pressure fighter would get ripped apart at 147 against either napoles, rodriguez or cokes. All 3 would mess him up until he gets tko'd or soundily beaten to a pulp. Chavez went back to 140 after the whitaker fight because he knew his limitations.

By the way, I really wouldnt care if you brought up whitaker's lightweight career in comparison to Napoles. It could mean nothing to me, napoles wasnt exactly beating bums before he took the belt from cokes. He beat at least 10 different opponents that were ranked contenders at one point or another before the cokes fight, 2 of those wins are against eddie perkins and carlos hernandez, lineal junior middleweight champions. I'll take those wins over the haugens, diaz's, lomelli, and ramirez's any day of the week.

 

Haha, nelson is a post 1980 fighter, where fighters fight way less and get 3-4 months to train for a contender. Its much easier to have fewer blemishes when you fight way less. Armstrong, Ezzard Charles, Emile Griffith all had many losses througout thier careers, that what happens when you have twice as many fights. I look at the wins, not who fights weaker competition and doesnt look bad because of it.

 

Well from what I generally read around the net, it is generally assumed that from 1960 and onwards, Ali and Duran are usually considered the two best fighters. Whitaker is always mentioned as a strong candidate for 3-5th best from 1960 and onwards, while napoles isnt even considered top 10 by many. Yeah i would say people tend to rank pernell higher and its wrong. If Duran wanted to, he could have easily fought napoles in 1974 instead of the Monzon fight, I think duran knew napoles would outbox him and soundily beat him.