is Pernel Whitaker Overrated?

He's angry and sulking, logic went out the window about page 2.

 

On the point of nitpicking, I personally don't believe Napoles and Whitaker are immediately comparable in size. And it's evident, at least, to me, on tape. Watch Napoles compete against Urbina in one of his filmed lightweight fights. I see a massively muscled man who's yet to enter his absolute prime with an inch and a half on Pernell in height and three whole inches in reach. His broad shoulders alone should give us pause. That, in my opinion, is at the bare minimum a Basilio-sized or Pacquiao-sized welterweight.

 

Really?

When it happens once it's a fluke. When it happens multiple times, you look for an underlying factor, like, i don't know, brittle skin perhaps?

Yeah, arguably he did. I don't have to resort to the Monzon and Stracey fights to make my case, I'd look more to Napoles prime to make my point. I'm not desperate like you. I wonder how long it will be until we hear the name Bojorquez

That's got to be the ace up your sleeve.

 

Just on Ike, he could have beaten a 96/7 Whitaker, and he'd have his chances against Tito too, though I think Felix ultimately triumphs there.

Was never going to come off, but he would have sparked Norris and finished his career too had that fight been in the mix around 96/7.

His career dwindled due to inactivity and failing to make fights happen when he was at his optimum.

As far as his ability goes, he is a clear tier above any of the fighters you mentioned.

 

Napoles was a tad bigger naturally I'd say. Whitaker was quite small even by lightweight standards.

He definitely carried 147 better than Whitaker as far as not being diminished.

Whitaker was noticeably different when he moved up.

 

Why use Napoles as your counterpoint.He gets plenty of love on here, has done for years and years.

I've rarely ever seen anyone be jumped on for suggesting he'd beat most fighters south of Ray Robinson.

If you seriously want to present an argument for someone being overestimated in your eyes, best to stick to their own career, rather than turn things into a vs thread against an already extremely highly regarded fighter.

Or at least use a variety of fighters to contrast with.

Going on a tangent, the 80s-present day HBO fighter tag is something i agree with as a general point incidentally.The subsequent every contender vs contender bout = SUPERFIGHT\PPV mentality has been bad for boxing.I blame Leonard myself, he really did become bigger than boxing itself for a time in the 80s and the media have been trying to recreate that ever since.

I feel this past half-decade fighters have benefited from it more than the majority of 90s fighters did in their prime though.Weaker era, but the hype stays the same... and internetz for all nowadays as well.Pavlik, Taylor, Cotto, Margarito, Bradley,Hatton, Dawson, Lacy, Haye, Mijares, Gamboa....an endless procession of average to decent fighters being sold as a lot more than they are.

Old fighters like Hopkins, Toney, DLH and Mosley have milked the way the networks treat every fight from a previously rightfully established name as still relevant to death.Can't blame them though, as they know most of the newer fighters the HBO's of the world are trying to get to replace them are overhyped shite that won't do much to them even if they can muster up the competency to actually win.Not much chance of taking on a real threat and getting a beating unless you seriously misjudge things ala DLH vs Pac.

Pac and Floyd are already doing this themselves and have been for years now.

Too many people afraid to acknowledge this has been a weak decade\half-decade for boxing.At least Whitaker had to carve out a reputation for himself the hard way, despite being an olympian too.

 

Great post lora and for me I see Ray as the template.

Broner is the new guy we're being force fed it seems.

 

I think Whitake was more of a Dejesus sized sort of fighter, he probably could have fought at 130 for a good while if he had wanted.

napoles was more natural 140 sized that could cut to 135 through dedication, a bit bigger than Carlos Ortiz, bit less rangey but equally muscled to Cervantes.Massive Lightweight

 

It's definitely Whitaker's fault, but it had been a long haul and he had achieved so much already, especially when you throw in 200+ amatueur fights in there. He took his eye of the ball and paid the price.

I'm just against you trying to present it as Whitaker at his best struggling against a journeyman. Simply wasn't the case. His fault or no, he was no longer at anything near his best.

 

Napoles was a master at cutting

 

I think his entry point was the Ring Mag's top fighters of the last 80 years and he used that as a sort of common held opinion to Whitaker bieng overrated.

I dare say half the guys here rate Napoles at least as highly as Whitaker.

I myself don't have a massive problem with that opinion, but ushvinder has been straw manning away and deserved to get played with.