About one percent of the population thinks that fight was a draw. It was a tour de force by Whitaker, not even close.
I believe Chavez could win but it don't feel strong enough to pick him. I do believe his fight was closer than originally believed and I do believe he was past prime while Whitaker was peak prime.
Yeah but the vast majority aren't political appointees of the Mexican based WBC. One judge had JC winning the first Randall fight. Anyone who thinks judges can't be biased is living in a fantasy world.
Not the question I asked, don't be obtuse for the sake of being obtuse. The question was: 1. How did YOU i.e. Seamus score the Chavez vs. Whitaker fight?
I saw it from about the 20th row in San Antonio (a horrible venue for fights). At the time, I thought it to be pretty boring with Whitaker doing more in the rounds he won but not doing 10-8, and Chavez nipping his rounds. Having later watched in on tape, I have genereally scored it for Pete by 1 and 2 rounds.
Okay, but you keep mention this being a draw, and thus Chavez would do better if younger. In fact though, you don't view the fight as a draw. So I'm just trying to nail down your view, are you saying: 1. If 3 judges could wrongly score that fight a draw, than surely Chavez doing a little better would get him the win or 2. Chavez would simply beat Whitaker, and bad judging would have nothing to do with it.
I could have been wrong. I had it close to being a draw. Perhaps the esteemed Micky Vann is a better judge than I.