DLH v Whitaker

Yeah, robbery is certainly not what I would call it, and I think Whitaker edged it. I can get into the reasoning, but I'm sure I have numerous times before, so I'll spare you guys. Anyways, yeah Oscar fought a good fight, he came to fight and brought it. As young as he was, and to not have really fought anybody like whitaker or near as good as whitaker; and still be very competitive and win on some cards, yup good fight for Oscar. Though Whitaker still won

 

a nice start to this thread, lets keep it up :thumbsup

 

Most people at ringside thought Oscar won as well.

 

Luckily I could see the fight for myself, when I can't, I like to just go ahead and go with....

 

I'm curious, so you believe Oscar took the title that night from Whitaker is a clear fashion?

 

Well, the notion of you need to take the title away from the Champion. That isn't why I thought he won, I simply thought he won the fight. However, when you consider that he was champion, Oscar did need to take his title, and imo he certainly did not. I also don't count that point deduction towards Pea, that was totally outlandish and shouldn't even be factored in imo.

 

Whitaker won the fight
He was the champ and controlled the fight with his jab.

 

7-5 Whitaker clear as day
The pt taken from Whitaker was also total bs and a made up rule on the spot. I've never heard when there is an accidental butt and one fighter is cut they take a point from the fight that isn't cut to even out the fight.
Wtf is that?
They were feeling the bern back they.

 

I have oscar winning that fight close. But clearly

 

It was a close affair. Oscar landed the more effective punches while Whitaker both out threw and outlanded against him, plus scoring a flash knockdown. The point deduction was legit as it was in conjunction with the rules of the event, but also unfortunate. It was never officially determined who was at fault for the accidental clash of heads, so within the rule book the guy who "wasn't" cut got the point deduction to even out whatever disadvantage the injured fighter had.. It was certainly valid for scoring but should have no bearing in my mind as to who actually fought the better fight. The thing that ruined it for Whitaker was the excessive amount of clowning he did which I'm sure the judges took into consideration as did I. He had the numbers on compubox as well as the knockdown in his favor.. Had he not screwed around and fought a tad more diligently he would have had that fight it in the bag... As it stands I have it a pretty dead even fight but have no problem with anyone who narrowly gives it to one man or the other.

 

Agree with most of what you said up Mr. M, all I would say is, Whitaker imo was the better boxer that night. He had seemingly every physical disadvantage going into the fight, but thanks to his savy, skills and ring generalship, I think he boss'd that fight. You have to take the title away from the champion, and in my mind, Oscar didn't take the title from Pea that night

 

Agreed. Oscar did not lift the crown that evening. But did Whitaker go out there and do a masterful job of retaining it? Not really. A draw would have been a fair outcome or maybe even the slightest edge for Whitaker but neither man "beat" the other in my opinion.. And being a long time professional and defending champion, Pernell should have taken the affair more seriously.