is Pernel Whitaker Overrated?

Its much easier to have blemishes when you fight signifcantly better opponents numnuts. Ortiz beat 6 hall of famers, whitaker beat 2.

Im sure Ortiz would get his ass kicked by brazier and pineda, oh wow pea really got tested at 140.

 

Mcgirt's resume: simon brown, oliva, frankie waren, and a bunch of journeyman or washed up hasbeens. Yup this guy would be welterweight champ for 4-5 years nowadays and challenge for top p4p spot. Not to mention he also lost to frankie waren and by all accounts its viewed as a legit loss.

Mcgirt is a good fighter, but lol at him being made out to be a special world beater.

 

Lol yeah it depends who you classify as great. Laguna is a real test at lightweight, as is de jesus, buchanan, etc The guys whitaker beat at lightweight would be beaten by any decent lightweight champ. He made decent fighters look bad, he beat a grand total of 2 hall of famers.

 

I thought we are talking about fighters that are the same size, what does beating a featherweight prove. Aaron Pryor beat an ATG featherwight and pryor isnt anywhere near whitaker on an all time list. If your going to talk about tests, at least mention someone who is viewed as a 135/140 pound fighter.

Carlos Ortiz was tested by Loi, Locche, Brown, Laguna, and 10 very good contenders. Whitaker was tested by mcgirt and chavez. He was tested twice dude, every other fight he was expected to win hands down.

Look, I have viewed all of whitakers fights from 1989-1997. Which is essentially his entire meaningful career, i am more than qualified to determine if I think his legacy is overrated. His reputation lives off the fact that he never truly got his butt whooped. If he fought in the 1960s and 1970s, with 80-100 career fights before the age of 33. Someone would have beat him soundly and his head to head repuation would have flamed out.

Its easier to diss ortiz and napoles, thier resume isnt as thin. They were tested throughout thier careers, pernell was tested at best 3 times before 1997.

 

Nelson didnt do anything at lightweight, its great if you think he would have been a world beater there.

I can say hagler would beat qawi, eddie mustafa and mathew saad at light heavyweight or last 12 rounds with michael spinks, but guess what he didnt step into the ring with those guys and beat them up.

I can say chaves would go to 147 and beat starling, curry, cotto, rodriguez, cokes. But guess what hes never beaten anyone worth mentioning at 147, so at the end of the day those statements hold no value.

You want to belive yourself into thinking nelson and chavez would have been greats a 135 and 147 respectively, if they truly believed in thier abilities they would have done it. My guess is don king told them to stay at 130 and 140, otherwise they would get thier butts whooped.

 

Roger Mayweather is a better test than Alexis Argeullo?

 

ramirez- good lightweight, but hes below camacho because camacho soundily whooped him.

mcgirt- whitakers first real test from a natural 135/140 size opponent. Very Good fighter, but one of cotto-bradley-hatton-margo would beat him, im not going to pretend mcgirt would last as champ for 5 years in todays era.

chavez- an atg 135/140 pound fighter, the fight that made whitaker legit.

nelson- great featherweight, but not a great win for a 135er, merely good win. Have to look past the name value.

haugen- above average, nothing more, ive actually met him in person, think hes a shitt trainer.

roger- very good superfeatherweight.

brazier- decent, but looked clueless against pernell. I think this is the fight where bill cosby, thurman thomas and bruce smith were at ringside.:smoke

vasquez- whitakers 3rd real test, i'll give him props because alot of lightweight would probably lose to vasquez. But lets not act like vasquez knocks mayweather out, i would honeslty be shocked if mayweather doesnt beat him.