is Pernel Whitaker Overrated?

Sure criticise him for losing fights in a much more loaded schedule, because every great from back then did it. Who wouldnt look unstoppable in whitakera era, his competition outside 3 or 4 good opponents were lackluster and he would have 6 months to prepare for b/c level fighters. Napoles has the better resume and at least i can expect napoles to ko some great/very good fighters, with pernell fighter all he can do is outpoint you.

Your basically criticising napoles for having losses at a time when he was fighting 10 times a year, yeah im sure whitaker wouldnt get his butt whooped if he was fighting that often, You even admitted napoles resume is better. So your best argument is "but my fighter went unblemished and looked more superman against b/c level opponents."

 

Arguably robbing, from the reports ive read it was a close but clear win for napoles. Robbery would suggest losing 8-4, or 9-3. But hey a win over him is still more impressive than the haugens, pinedas, cardonas, jacobs, poli diazs, paezs, need i say more, lol. Not as bad as getting beat up with hamburger meet face by rivera. OMG i forgot, whitaker started coking.

 

Nope, your wrong. People used to pick any great to beat de la hoya. Whether it was benitez, curry, kid pambele, even argeullo was favoured once and people said oscar cant beat atgs. I remember his hate on the net quite well. Oscar has been retired for 4 years and now hes slowly getting nostalgia treatment, how original.

No he wouldnt do better against cotto, he looked like **** against hurtado and rivera. Youve got your head so stuck up pernell its not even funny. Horrible horrible analytical skills. I just rewatched his fightes with pestriaev and hurtado last night, he was so mediocre at that point. Mayweather will never look that mediocre even when hes 38.

 

Beating fighters in divisions, wtf? People want to see BIG Fights, no one really gives a crap about title defenses. Big Fights make legacies, not dinky title defenses.

 

What options do you have, by nitpicking losses. Yea i think most people care more about who you beat. Duran could have lost 20 times for all i care. His wins resume is enough to have him ranked where he is. ditto with ezzard charles.

 

The manner in which you beat your opponents is more important in the manner in which you lose, especially losses caused by a freakin cut.

Napoles stopped a truck load of good welterweights, made cokes quite twice, knocked out carlos hernandez, stopped a bunch of lightweights and 140 pounders. Pernell on the other hand decisioned everybody except lomeli, nazario, and jake rodriguez. Wow, so impressive. I'll take the guy that finishes very good fighters. Manner in victory is crucial. I foget, he also stopped hurtado after hurtado gave him a boxing lesson.:good

 

I would expect that whitaker to lose and that whitaker also losses to quartey if he fought quartey in 1999. He was old, slow and shot. Pernell must be employing you, but its cool im just a whitaker fan, you are really passionate about him it seems.

You expect de la hoya to lose to kid pambele, donald curry, alexis arguello. Yet you think oscar and ike always beat floyd mayweather. Wow accoridng to you, pernell is michael jordan, while floyd is penny hardaway it seems. Im sorry the gap isnt that big, no gap at all actually. Floyd can actually stop his opponents. By the time pernell creates a highlight reel of kos, pigs will start flying.

 

If you wanted to nitpick napoles, you would have to do the same for every great from the pre HBO era, thats why you dont do it. Kid gavilan and emile griffith werent exactly undefeated either.

Aaron pryor, floyd mayweather, finito lopez, felix trinidad, mike tyson, etc have all had long streaks of invincibility, chavez too. Its a re-occuring theme these days, whitaker is no outlier.

 

Yeah because pendleton has the resume of napoles, keep it up. Hey i guess george st. pierre is still a better p4p fighter than anderson silva and jon bones jones, i mean hes greating at winning decisions.:good