is Pernel Whitaker Overrated?

I dont think your opinion is educated at all, do you know about the history of the sport, sure. Are you biased, defintely. Suggesting that because whitaker beat swarmers in his era makes him bulletproof to atg swarmers with different ranges of height, athletic ability, etc. is complete ignorance. Ike Williams had a devastating right, so he got outboxed a few times in his era, so what? Pernell would have taken his fair share of losses in the 1940's, division was way deeper.

 

Yeah who they fought had alot to do with it. Look, your not going to change my opinion. I think napoles beat better fighters than chavez and has a better resume. You think chavez was more dominant and has fewer blemishes, while napoles has 'embarassing losses', good for you i dont care. I've got napoles a solid 15-20 spots ahead on my all time lists and its not changing anytime soon.

 

Implying that alot of fighters have 'dominance' and fewer blemishes in the HBO era, its a re-occuring theme. Don King promoted chavez well and lots of people think chavez is overrated as ****, i dont need to sit here and convince you. Like really your shiting on fighters from the 1960s for thier losses, when the fact is everyone lost.

 

Well i dont need to be told by you whats a credible opinion and whats not, who are you? You aint got any credentials, i talk to people that have actually boxed and boxing trainers that know the game, we usually agree Ike beats pernell, i doubt i care if an internet warrior tells me im uneducated. Im sure your albert einstein.

 

Well thats why hes the greatest of all times, his streak of dominance is literally 7-10x more impressive than chavez's.

 

Yea i think they could if they fought a ****load of bums, got richard steele to help chavez win his biggest fight, get don king to fix a bogus draw and only have meldrick, camacho and rocky as the 3 best opponents to beat. Most boxers nowdays take 10-15 fights against cabdrivers before they start fighting good journeyman or respectable contenders, chavez took at least 40 fights against complete and utter nobodies. I judge chavez based on what i see and not his paper record. His lack of blemishes really dont matter to me because i dont think chavez is as good as fighters like napoles, pacquaio or even floyd mayweather. Disagree, well i could give a rats ass.

 

Because duran fought less and less at lightweight later on in his career. When you talk about fantasy matchups you have to factor in when the fight happens, you cant just say 'prime' this guy and pretend that represent 10-15 years. Duran didnt show up to every fight the same way. Duran had his fair share of off nights even in his own prime. Duran always partied and ate buffets, he didnt cut weight in the exact same manner for every single fight. If duran and whitaker are going to fight 3 times, its probably going to represent a time period of 5 years altogether, think about that before you get all over my ass. By the time duran and whitaker would fight for the third time, weight cutting would be an issue with duran.

 

His resume is 'good' but his myth is overrated and again how mayweather and pac do against that lot is all hypotethical and even if they catch a loss or two, its irrelevant. I have pac ahead of chavez all time and floyd/chavez are around the same region on my all time lists.

 

Yeah and you have an iq of 150, he struggled against edwin viruet.