is Pernel Whitaker Overrated?

You didnt shut anyone down you ape, I have watched all of his fights just like you have, his resume isnt as great as everyone seems to think, its people like you that maker whitaker so freakin overrated. By the way i only referred to whitaker fighting ike between 1994 and 1996, regardless there are alot of fighters he didnt fight. You can hype yourself into believing chavez and nelson would have been world beaters at the higher weights, i'll look at the fact that they dropped back down and remained there as proof that don king knew thier limitations and didnt want to see his fighters lose. Chavez's style of fighting wouldnt have worked at all against bigger fighters that hit harder and move better, its the worst style of fighting to be succcessful at a higher weight. Outside of mcgirt, slow plodding vasquez and blown up chavez, whitaker essentially has a thin resume and is ranked highly because he never got his butt whooped, a factor that would have been non-existant had he fought in the 60s and 70's.

 

Well first of all, you are not factoring in the era they fought in, whitaker is a post 1980 HBO fighter. He is given a long contract and is allowed to train 4-6 months for 1 specific fighter, while napoles fought in the last hurrah of the old school era, where you take fight after fight on short notice. Every great pre-1980 was soundily beaten. Ortiz had his fair share of losses, so did argeullo, duran was cleanly beaten by de jesus, as did every other all timer in the 135/140 weight range. Whitaker isnt the only post 1980 HBO era fighter that had a long streak of never losing, it was actually a common theme.

I am actually a whitaker fan by the way, but his constant worship in head to head matchups is grossly exaggerated. Reality says if whitaker existed 10 years earlier, he would have to fight arguello, pryor and donald curry in order to win straps at 135-147. The odds are that one of them gives him a sound beating and his invincibility would be gone. He would beat 2 of them, but he would also lose. Im not going to pretend he beats everyone because he doesnt.

My criteria for thier resumes is simple. The Riveras, Cardonas, Pestriaevs, Jacobs and Rodriguez's arent as good as the contenders napoles was beating. Napoles was beating the guys that would basically hold the ibf and wba belts if they were divided up, alot of whitaker's welterweight opponents were mandatory bums. Pernell himself called those guys bums. I believe his quote was "Im sick and tired of fighting these mandatory bums, when am i going to get trinidad or a chavez re-match". I realize its not pernell's fault that don king wouldnt let his fighters face pernell, but i am not giving him credit for what ifs. Napoles has the better resume and is more battle tested in general.

Being friends with meldrick is no excuse for not fighting, Im postive ramirez and chavez have a much closer friendship. Chavez had no problems kicking his ass. Instead of Duva putting taylor in there with norris, a fight with pernell would have made much more sense. Ditto with ike, during the whitaker-jacobs time period, the announcers were saying Ike Quartey is available, why isnt pernell fighting him? Another fight that could have easily been made between 94-96 and nothing happened. Whitaker could have had a better resume than napoles, could have, but doesnt.

 

Thanks for proving my point. No one soundily beats him, lol. Damn i never knew beating julio, buddy and fat chavez can make somone immortal in 3 weight classes.

 

Benny isnt a fighter that i would favour over pernell. Napoles is, he would be all over pernell all 12 rounds, wouldnt even be shocked if he sparks whitaker and lays him out. Napoles is an entirely different animal from the scrubs whitaker was 'dominating'. I think pryor likely beats him too, he would get in whitakers head and just be all over him, whitaker doesnt have the power to get hawks respect. If panama lewis mixes the bottle, I would pray for whitaker.

 

Are you joking? Napoles spent his entire 20's fighting at 135 and 140, hes virtually the same height as pernell. He moved up to welter in the last 60s because he was never given a title shot at 135 or 140, which was a re-occuring theme back then, maybe study the fighter before you analyze him. Napoles is hardly a natural welterweight.

I guess floyd patterson is a natural heavyweight in that regards.

 

You dont even know that napoles was ranked as a top 5 lightweight for years before he even fought a welterweight? I thought i was talking to a bunch of experts. Napoles, the guy who was fighting at 129-135 his first 6 years, yeah what a monster welterweight he is, a clone of thomas hearns.