Pernell Whitaker vs. Julio Cesar Chavez: Why was there no rematch?

After he had been softened with repeated low blows

 

Chavez went back to 140. Also, he wanted to get to 100-0. Fortunately, Randall ended that quest.

 

Did Chavez throw any low blows?

 

Sweet Pea really didn't get robbed of anything. He had been near the top of the boxing world for years but as he put it to Montial Williams the people saw it. He was the winner in the public's mind.
That was one of the matchups fans argued about and they saw them finally fight. My own grandfather cussed me out for suggesting Whitaker would outbox Julio.

I don't think the Duvas were the "good guys" as TKO Magazine seems to suggest every other sentence. They were no better or honorable than Don King. The Duvas were the reason we didn't see the fight much sooner.
The bout being @147 had thrown some question on it, rightfully so. Duva tried to do that with Meldrick Taylor but Chavez had already damaged him enough that it didn't matter.

 

Unintentionally to the thigh when Whitaker was getting up from crouching. Not ~12 direct shots to the nuts

 

Chavez was obviously God round the first match up. Why would he take the fight at 147? I just never understood that. Pea needed him more than JCC needed Pea. I know Duvas and Pea avoided JCC for about four years.
I thought Pea clearly won the fight but it was boring, dirty, and pointless at 147. Fight was not a blow out or a schooling as many just say because it was the cool thing to say. It was close and JCC had many moments in it. Pea also made JCC a eunuch.

 

Trust me, they were better and more honorable than King, although, admittedly, Don set a very low bar. They didn't have a sanctioning body in their pocket as King did with the WBC. King did put on better cards than Dan Duva, though. I guess he was much better at suckering fighters to sign with him. King had very few fighters for whom he cared about their ling term success, so he would match tougher. Chavez, Tyson and maybe Norris were his meal tickets that he somewhat protected.

 

I think the fight was made at 145.
Chavez should have said 140, yes.

 

I recall the Duvas dropped Holyfield right after he lost to Bowe. Implying that he didn't train well enough. That is how they painted a guy who carried them. IF they can do that and say that than none of their fighters safe.
King may have been worse but the press Duva got was favorable.

 

I love how the talk now seems to be..... It wasn't the robbery people make it out to be... I actually could see a draw.... Umm no, it was an injustice. I guess revisionism is now working the opposite direction of what it once did. Now it's, yeah, I could see a draw. Jesus.

 

It was a horrible decision and i too laugh now at people trying to justify it wasnt a robbery .
Pea beat Chavez and WORSE for JC he didnt run and even backed off Chavez .
Hell i remember watching that fight and even casual boxing fans were expecting a Pea victory .
JC wouldnt ever go near Pea again because on that night two things happened: Pea proved to be the better fighter AND Pea could hurt Chavez which suprised people.

 

It wasn't exactly a massive injustice. Whitaker was champion and kept his title. A draw is always a milder form of robbery than a loss anyway. And as champion he really didn't lose anything. He has a "D" on his record instead of a "W" but everyone knew he won, and it didn't hurt his career.

 

Chalk up another victory for the subliminal influence of biased commentary on the masses.

 

He kept his title, but the acclaim is always different, even slightly, when you get a D instead of a W. Chavez had the whole allure of having never lost, and the p4p no. 1 guy, and Pea missed out on his chance to be recognized as the first to beat him etc etc. I know what you mean, but what you said is kind of what I was trying to say. Now it's no longer an injustice of a decision, now it's, yeah, I could see a draw... or like you.. well people knew he won, so he didn't miss out on much. To me, a spade is a spade, and that was a bad decision.

 

You make a very good counter point to mine.
If the decision had been correctly rendered, (as a win for Whitaker), the question of whether a draw verdict is "bad" or "not bad" or "not that bad" or "no big deal" wouldn't even rear its head.
I might feel people who protest it go over the top with their protests, but the decision was off, and if it had been good there would be nothing to protest and nobody here would be having this conversation.