Pernell Whitaker was probably overrated

[ShamrockXpress]

Sweat pea wouldn't beat brook, porter or Garcia?

No wonder I hardly come on here any more, some people chat utter bollox.

[Hype job]

Brook would be too big, Porter would be a stylistic nightmare, and Danny has a solid foundation strong enough to beat the smaller Pernell.

[IMG]https://media.*****.com/media/5YF9dwGZ29rVe/*****.gif[/IMG]

[Caught Square]

Laughable post, if your gonna call someone overrated and then go on to say they are top ten all time and their defence is 'second to none' a few lines later how do you expect to be taken seriously? Is it you that overrates him because i don't know many who call him the best of all time or even top 10. Don't even get me started of the rest of that trash you wrote lol.

[john l]

Let's get one thing clear, Pernell is one of the top ten most skilled boxers of all time. The guy was great at fighting in the pocket, his hand was beautiful, his foot work was as smooth as a preacher's sheets, and his defense was second to none I'm. But, looking back at his resume, you will see that he has no real great names on his resume. He got outboxed by Oscar, he couldn't finish Chavez, and he list to Tito. Now, some may argue that he was out of his prime against Oscar and Tito but that is an Excuse. Pernell couldn't adjust to the speed, power, and skill of Oscar and he couldn't handle the constant pressure Tito was bringing to him. Yes, people say that he schooled Chavez but after rewatching the fight, it isn't as clear as many people make it out to be. There are those who say that Pernell is superior to Floyd but I just don't agree. I don't see a 30 to 34 year old Floyd losing to the Chavez, Tito, or Oscar that Pernell fought. Well, Oscar would probably be 50/50 or 60/40 favoring Oscar due to styles but he would've embarrassed Tito and Chavez with ease. For all the flack guys like Roy Jones and Floyd Mayweather get for not fighting top competition, one thing is for sure, they both have a better resume than Pernell. I could drop Floyd in any era and he would be a top 5 fighter in any Era. Hell, I think he would be undisputed at 140 and 147 if he was in his prime today, but nothing Pernell did in his career can convince me that he would beat the likes of Thurman, Porter, Mikey, Crawford, Danny, and Brook. Discuss?

1st off he did not get "outboxed"by ODLH it was other way around.(most had it for pea close)And he never stopped Chavez????????no one stopped Chavez at that time NO ONE.And Tito fight was WAY past his prime and MUCH bigger.And have you ever even heard of Azumah Nelson?Man I could go on for ever but I got a feeling its a waste of my time.Go back and watch him and quit just going to boxrec to see records.One of the two best fighters ive EVER seen fight live in his prime.(class of 1980 Chavez,Nelson,curry)

[john l]

Laughable post, if your gonna call someone overrated and then go on to say they are top ten all time and their defence is 'second to none' a few lines later how do you expect to be taken seriously? Is it you that overrates him because i don't know many who call him the best of all time or even top 10. Don't even get me started of the rest of that trash you wrote lol.

I know once I started I realized this is gonna be a long one and this guy is not able to save lol.One of the greatest EVER.

[Sheldon312]

so hes overrated but top 10 of all time?

Skill wise p4p he is but when you look at his resume it doesn't scream top ten great. Let's take Floyd for example. P4P he is a top five fighter based off skill but his resume falls short compared to others so he isn't a top ten all time great

[The D3vil]

LMAO, he got robbed against Chavez & De La Hoya.

That's almost universally accepted.

Joke thread

[Johnwoo8686]

so hes overrated but top 10 of all time?

In the Words of Lord Eddard Stark: "Anything someone says before the word "But" is horse shit."

[MurkaMan]

I had him clearly winning over JCC. He had the balls to take on prime Tito, Chavez and DLH--something Floyd would never have done. I do think Buddy McGirt beat him in their first fight though. McGirt is highly underrated as a boxer.

I think Whitaker's defense is much more impressive than Floyd's. Whitaker stood in front of fighters and made them miss, he has superior footwork. Floyd relied heavily on clinching and running, particularly in the second half of his career.

Whitaker was sloppy, and always got hit. He was easy to be hit. And when he was defensively sound, it was that lame "flashy" head movement. Floyd didnt run and clinch until he was old and washed.

Floyd stood right in front of guys and made it look so easy, it made no sense. Never in a million years, will Whitaker's terrible azz, be better than Floyd. Its night and day comparing him to Floyd. He is a TERRIBLE fighter in comparison to Floyd. You sat up here and told these blatant lies. Pernell was TRASH And used to have these sloppy brawls!! Boy when Floyd brawled, his inside game, was masterful.

[GhostofDempsey]

Whitaker was sloppy, and always got hit. He was easy to be hit. And when he was defensively sound, it was that lame "flashy" head movement. Floyd didnt run and clinch until he was old and washed.

Floyd stood right in front of guys and made it look so easy, it made no sense. Never in a million years, will Whitaker's terrible azz, be better than Floyd. Its night and day comparing him to Floyd. He is a TERRIBLE fighter in comparison to Floyd. You sat up here and told these blatant lies. Pernell was TRASH And used to have these sloppy brawls!! Boy when Floyd brawled, his inside game, was masterful.

Whitaker was tested against prime elites that Floyd would never have fought in his own prime. Floyd was too busy fighting flat-footed brawlers his entire career and waiting for the best to fade and then fight them past their prime or when they weren't at their best. Easy to look better at something when your opposition is a string of no-hopers, old farts, and battle worn opponents.