What could be the worst decision to go against Pernell Whitaker. Chavez, Ramirez I. or acording to Whitaker De La Hoya Or is there something about Whitaker's style which doesn't make him Judge-friendly?
I'm sure Whitaker would have rather have had that Chavez draw go his way but how Whitaker actually lost the first Ramirez fight is beyond me. A draw would have been bad enough but one of the judges actually had Ramirez up 118-113. Still, it's basically just going from bad to worse because there's no way to justify either of these decisions.
A loss that isn't deserved by any stretch of the imagination isn't as indigestible as a draw. When one factors into account that Chavez performed at a slightly higher level than Ramirez, and won a round or two more on my card (although not enough to secure the draw), I think the Ramirez fight was the more egregious robbery.
"Whitaker-Ramirez 1" was ****ING bull****.... It 'twas the worst..... STILL! The '93 draw rendered between "Whitaker & Chavez" was also bogus...... BOTH were black eyes' for boxing.... TRUTH! MR.BILL
Well just how many examples are there of the Don King fighter getting the short end of the stick fighting the other promoter? It should be a fifty fifty thing but it's far far from that. When you go into the lions den, you play by the lions rules.
I don't think Chavez-Whitaker was any closer than Ramirez-Whitaker I. Both were 9-3 to 8-4-ish in nature. I don't think either fight can be scored a draw, even if you give Chavez and Ramirez every benefit of the doubt. For example, if you give CHavez every benefit of the doubt, you can give him rounds 1,2,5,9 and 12. The only way you can score round 6 beyond a draw for Chavez is if you are Mickey Vann and make your own rules. Even then you're a ****en idiot, because Chavez was punching Whitaker on the thighs and hips repeatedly throughout the first 6 rounds and it would take extreme one-eyed delirium to deduct a point from Whitaker. The Ramirez result (since he won the fight) is probably worse, and the cards were certainly worse, but given the stature of the fight and what it meant for boxing, I still think the Chavez fight is the bigger black eye for boxing. Don King raped boxing in the 90's, being responsible for 3 of the worst decisions in the history of the sport (Chavez-Whitaker, Lewis-Holyfield I & Fenech-Nelson I) and Jose Sulaiman was his willing accomplice and responsible for a good many more shaftings of lesser magnitude. It's interesting to think that if Azumah Nelson was good enough to win about 4 rounds against Whitaker, they probably would have raped Whitaker there as well... Whitaker-De la Hoya was not a robbery, although it was going to be if Whitaker actually managed to win that fight clear.
can't agree, whitaker clearly more rounds. it's under the 10 point must system that there is no justification. there's no six rounds that could be argued for chavez.
