it was a blatant robbery. Ramirez was a WBC favorite (Mexican) and the fight was promoted by Ramirez's promoter - the Acaries bros. Acaries bros probably gave Suiliman a nice pre-fight check. Ramirez was aggressive, but his aggressiveness was largely ineffective. I had it 116-110.
My uncle hates Pernell Whitaker with the sort of passion that only a Mexican can feel for a someone who fights going backwards and even he scored the fight for Whitaker. Ramirez ' s mother even thought Pete won that fought.
I too had Ramirez winning. He tried to make it a fight, and was not any less effective than Whitaker.
I had it 7 rounds to 5 for Whitaker. Whitaker definitely showed his inexperience in the later half of the fight when Ramirez came on strong. The fact that Ramirez won it by split decision was not the worst decision I have ever seen but the judge who had it for Ramirez by that wide score was off his head. I just re-watched this fight today based on this thread.
rd 1 - Whitaker rd 2 - punch wise slight edge to Whitaker but Ramirez more agressive, makes it about even. rds 3,4,5* - Ramirez rd 6 - even rd 7* - slight rd for Whitaker. Could be even as well ue to agression by Ramirez. rd 8* - close rd 4 Ramirez due 2 agression. Punch wise n even rd. rd 9 even, but could be given 2 Ramirez due to agression and Witaker resort 2 clinching in z end. rd 10 even, quite similar 2 rd 9 rd 11 similar but i gave it 2 ramirez due 2 pernell's clinch on z hip rd 12 - Ramirez matter 4 thought : it is hard to notice a hit when target is recoiling and retreating voluntarily, yet it is still a hit. also mind u, Ramirez was 30 yo and probably past his best by then. Rematch in 1989 was an increase of advantage in favor of Pernell.