is Pernel Whitaker Overrated?

Firstly, Kid Gavilan got robbed a hell of a lot of times. If you look at his record according to what actually occured he has very few losses in his prime and has a much better resume than Napoles to boot. For that reason I'd rank him way, way up there. Emile Griffith I don't rate extremely highly to begin with, as I stated in the LMR vs. Holman Williams thread, becuase I think he was actually gifted a lot of fights. He was a great fighter and very durable, able to match it with many guys, but I think the best welterweights that could stand up to his strength would beat him.

Whitaker isn't revered just for going undefeated in his prime, he's revered for outclassing guys in his prime, irrespective of their level of ability. He decisions guys widely, whether they were CHavez or Santos Cardona. He made it look easy. Trinidad, Pryor and Tyson did not outclass everyone irrespective of their levels. THerein lies the difference.

 

Knocking people out isn't a necessary criterion for greatness. It's a method of winning, and one that get you to beat certain fighters who are vulnerable to big punches, but it's not necessary to be great.

No one would accuse Locche of not being great because he didn't knock anyone out. Locche had his own strengths which made him successful.

If you prefer to watch fighters that can knock guys out all well and good, but don't act as if that in and of itself can make someone greater than someone else.

Napoles had good power, Whitaker had good point piling ability. Both effective ways to get the job done.

Napoles could box too, I know, but he couldn't box quite as well as Whitaker could.

 

Ike would definitely not lose to those guys. Ike was an A level guy in his time, and not B level. B level guys would be someone like Oba Carr or Yory Boy Campas. They'd have their wins and losses amongst that lot.

 

Yeah, Napoles was a better puncher than Pea.

But it's not like Pea wasn't spiteful. He sparked Nazario with one shot and drubbed Hurtado late on to force the stoppage.

Sure he wasn't a hard puncher. I guess Antonio Avelar is greater than Miguel Canto?

 

Also, while I think Floyd is an awful matchup for Arguello and would likely decision him, Arguello is clearly the far greater fighter.

Oh, and he hit much harder. By the OPs own logic that makes him 'better' than Floyd.

 

Well, if the criteria for greatness is resume + punching power, then I'm with you all the way.

To me, dominance is an important facet in determining greatness though, and I think Whitaker was more dominant. I also think Whitaker's resume is not far inferior to Napoles' to offset the losses Napoles had. And that edges him ahead of Jose by just a little. That's my case in a nutshell.

 

Yeah he had no choice, lucky for him he was such a great boxer, otherwise he'd have been in trouble with his punching power.

Of course you can say that for many greats. I don't really see it as a put down like you do. I appreciate the artistry of the sport more than the brutality of it, hence my affinity for fighters like Whitaker, Billy Graham, Imsael Laguna, Johnny Famechon etc.

 

So your banking on a Ike losing post prime fights to those guys?

Ok, sure, why not, I guess....

I thought we were talking best vs. best.

At his best, and those guys at their best, he;s not losing to them.

If you think he does, forget glasses, you need eyes. :good

 

Knock outs are one form of dominance, wide points wins are another.

And getting stopped by some guys is also another thing still. Double edged sword ain't it?