Fight of the Week #5: De la Hoya Double (Whitaker and Trinidad)

I really don’t want to hear from anyone on this forum cry that Whitaker was robbed in this fight! You have had a whole week, to show a card and how this is even controversial, rather than regurgitating whatever mantra you heard somewhere. Pathetic, how many times I hear this and how not one showed up

 

I don't know enough about FT to give an opinion, but he did look like a tall fighter as did DLH. Maybe it was a case of two tall fighters for their division fighting each other and FT not being used to fighting someone as tall? He did better the last two rounds, don't know if that was because DLH became tentative or because FT adapted.

 

I think it was a bit of both, Oscar seemed content to run down the clock (over)confident that he'd got the fight in the bag. Tito seemed to adjust a bit and just step up the activity. He became less reluctant to throw shots.

 

This brings up a point about scoring round 3. I get if there are blatant low blows or infractions that cause a deduction and thus that is factored into our scoring. However, if we are judging these fights based on who landed more punches along with other factors.... How on God's Green Earth does a stupid rule about a fighter not cut gets a point deducted, tell us who won the actual fight between the two? IMO the rule shouldn't be counted in our scoring because of this.

 

I agree. I think the point deduction was bull****. Didn't change the outcome on my card but in close fights these things can make a difference.

 

DeLaHoya vs. Trinidad

Can't believe I've never re-sat down to score this fight. As a fan of Tito's I really wanted to see him win, but while I'm cheering for a fighter I don't really sit back impartially to score. So now I am.

Round 1: 10-10 Even
Round 2: 10-10 Even
Round 3: 10-9 DeLaHoya
Round 4: 10-9 Trinidad
Round 5: 10-9 DeLaHoya
Round 6: 10-9 DeLaHoya
Round 7: 10-9 DeLaHoya
Round 8: 10-9 DeLaHoya
Round 9: 10-9 DeLaHoya
Round 10: 10-9 Trinidad
Round 11: 10-9 Trinidad
Round 12: 10-9 Trinidad

Total: 116-114 DeLaHoya

If it wasn't for the fact that I enjoy and need to hear the impact of punches, I would turn the volume down and avoid some of the blather that some announcers foist on the audience. Round 9 for example. I was stunned that Harold scored it for Felix but to hear Lampley say that it was one of Trinidad's best rounds. I was like, 'huh?!' I felt that was a very comfortable round for Oscar. What can you do?

 

I'm not sure the complaint here.... Is it that nobody who has cried robbery has produced a card showing a robbery? If so, I would agree, there was no robbery. If you're saying that nobody produced a card showing Pea winning the fight, then I believe there has been already, but I also came out with Pea ahead.

1. Whitaker
2. DLH
3. Even or DLH 10-9 if counting the rule (No way was this round should be scored 10-8, that is being blatantly disingenuous imo. Without the bs rule, Whitaker might have taken the round anyways)
4. DLH
5. Whitaker
6. Whitaker
7. Even (Edge to Whitaker if made to pick)
8. DLH
9. Whitaker (10-8)
10. DLH
11. Whitaker
12. DLH

So, I come out with a 5 - 5 - 2... and the KD being the difference for a Whitaker win. That's counting the 3rd round as a Oscar round because of point deduction. It certainly wasn't a clear Oscar round for me without the deduction, and certainly not a 10-8 round. At most a 10-9 round or a 9-9 round.

 

I didn't score the Oscar vs. Felix card because I already know there is no way for Oscar to lose that fight on my card. We aren't talking about an unwritten rule of coasting and how that is arbitrarily scored, we are talking who won the most rounds, and I have yet to be able to find a way for Trindad to win enough rounds. Ever.

 

I likely agree with your view on why the rule was in place. My view is, why are we factoring that into OUR scoring of this fight? I thought one of the main points in this exercise is to score rounds based on boxing and who did a better job of that each round to win the round. Not include some arbitrary lame rule into our criteria that has nothing to do with who did the better job of boxing and winning rounds.

 

I'm not sure Whitaker won round three... I said he could've, and it was a close round. All I was definitive about, was that this round shouldn't be scored 10-8. This wasn't a 10-8 type of round imo.

Round 1 - My question to you would be, how could this round be scored for DLH? I see no way for this round to be his, at worst it could be even, as it was a close round. To be more specific, DLH landed like 5 punches the entire round, and 3 of those were lead right hands to the body. Whitaker used the jab to control distance and Oscar's aggression. In my view, he landed more punches, and clearly so. Nothing awe inspiring to be sure, but he still landed more punches and imo won the ring generalship criteria and that got him the round. Narrowly. What I find odd though, is you saying you haven't seen anyone else give Whitaker round 1. In a quick search, I found multiple who did so. Granted we don't know their knowledge and experience in judging fights, but we don't know that stuff here either all the time. Here is some samples, and plenty gave round 1 to Whitaker...

http://www.boxing.pl/forum/strefa-p...la-hoya-vs-pernell-whitaker-12-04-1997-a.html

https://www.eyeonthering.com/boxing/pound-pound-pernell-whitaker-vs-oscar-de-la-hoya

Just to quote McGrain on one of his posts on this fight... he also seems to think it's a Whitaker round if a winner is awarded for that round.

"Pea looked like he was going to take it based upon round one, Oscar just looked legitimately befuddled"

I can find more, but it struck me as odd you were amazed I could score round 1 for Whitaker, when I'm not sure how it couldn't be scored for him or at worst a draw with whitaker likely edging it.