So I have just watched Whittaker vs De La Hoya (had never watched it) and I would like to come back on some things. But first, what a fight! 2 magnificent fighters with some class as well, a clash of styles and some awesome moments. That being said, I wondered how some of you had scored it. I had heard Pea was robbed and while I believe the score cards were disgracefully wide, I thought it was a nightmare to score. IMO the crowd helped Oscar big time because many times he was throwing good looking combos and the crowd went wild but nothing landed! On the other hand, Whittaker's style did not do him a favor in the scoring. He dodged an awful lot of punches but I reckon it s hard to see. Now the decisive thing was probably the "power punch VS jab" thing, Oscar landing more of the former and Whittaker of the latter. What frustrates me however is that power punches in this fight seem to have been rated too highly. Yes, Oscar landed many, but how many landed well? Very few as though he would get touched, Pea partly evaded/blocked 90% of them. Otherwise, I believe Oscar would have dropped Pernell, which did not happen. Another thing that frustrates me is that Pernell probably was a bit too confident in winning some round and so blew some he could easily have won (12th round for example. He dodged almost everything but did not throw many contrary to the 11th). And then, Oscar would go on a spree in the last 15th seconds and while not landing, it must have looked good for the judging just as when he would raise his glove at the end of every round. So here is my scorecard. I don't have ton of experience in scoring fights so don't take mine too seriously, but I'd like to see your scorecards. Whittaker vs De la Hoya 10 9 9 10 8 10 (-1 to Whittaker due to WBC headbutt rule) 10 9 9 10 9 10 10 9 9 10 10 8 10 10? (no idea how to score that. Oscar landed a good right hand clean, but Whittaker got more jabs in. Also, the trade of punches at the end makes Oscar look good but as I see it, he did not land a single punch while Whittaker at least sneaked in a few body shits, although they probably were not so hard) 10 9 9 10 (Again, I don't know. I give Oscar the nod for a couple early round punches but then Whittaker came back with the jab. After that, Oscar launched a lit of punches but none landed. Whittaker showed of at the end and I'm not sure it made him any favor in the judging, but still, he dodged everything in the last 30s to me) 113-114 for Oscar I was surprised I had Oscar winning in the end, but given that there are at least 2 rounds I don't know how to score, it does not mean much. Tbh I think a draw would have been a good result. Btw, Oscar and Pernell both talked about a rematch directly after the fight. Why has it never happened? PS: if you have any highly competitive and technical masterpiece fights like this one to suggest, I'm all ears Cheers
Nightmare of a fight to score, but definitely not a robbery. Just fans and haters who think they're cards are perfect. I had it for Sweet Pea 1. Pea 10-9 (Pea 10-9) 2. Pea 20-18 (Pea 10-9) 3. Even 28-28 (Hoya 10-8) 4. Pea 38-37 (Pea 10-9) 5. Pea 48-46 (Pea 10-9) 6. Pea 57-56 (Hoya 10-9) 7. Even 66-66 (Hoya 10-9) 8. Hoya 76-75 (Hoya 10-9) 9. Pea 85-84 (Pea 10-8) 10. Even 94-94 (Hoya 10-9) 11. Pea 104-103 (Pea 10-9) 12. Pea 114-112 (Pea 10-9) Although I did score the day he died so there may have been some bias.
Yeah definitely a hard fight to score. I really felt Pea was the better fighter but gave some rounds being too confident. But given the judges scorecards, I'm not sure it would have changed the outcome in their eyes. Still, what an impressive performance from Pernell. He had a 4 inches disadvantage and yet was neither dropped, nor flushed (except for one good punch). His jab and reflexes in this fight were a thing of beauty.
He did land more according to compubox but scored fewer power punches overall. Still, I think the compubox numbers are irrelevant in the fight. To me, Oscar's numbers were inflated because the majority of the scored power punches had been partly evaded or dropped by Pernell. Yet when you go and score the rounds, Oscar still manages to get a claim for the decision. And while Pernell did KD Oscar (I really feared Mills Lane would not count it as he hesitated a bit), it was mostly due to Oscar boldly going southpaw against the best southpaw at that time. He got a couple shots in and then got rightfully punished for it. He was not hurt though, you can see the KD mostly occurred because he stepped on Whittaker's foot (and not the other way around, so it's his fault no matter what).
If you ignore all context, history and peripherals, then Oscar getting the nod in this fight was no disgrace. I've scored this one a couple of times, and tend to think that Whitaker edged it by a small margin or at least deserved a draw to keep his title - but as others have said, it was difficult to score and it was close enough that I can accept anyone scoring it for De la Hoya, as long as it's by a similarly small margin. But I think perceptions of this fight and the verdict get distorted because of other matters which I've alluded to above. We know that Whitaker's name has become synonymous with being treated poorly by judges because of the Ramirez (at least he got to avenge that 'loss') and Chavez (more costly to his legacy, as it should have been his career zenith) debacles. Hence, he loses another significant fight against a big name opponent, it's easy to say, "Well, that's what happens with Whitaker, he always wins and gets robbed!" or suchlike. But this fight was nothing like Ramirez I or Chavez, which were legitimately worthy of the often overused robbery title. Also, the official score cards leave a sour taste. Four, six and six points across the three cards in Oscar's favour was, quite frankly, a disgrace. The result itself was acceptable, but those cards simply weren't and I'm amazed that anyone could have either guy four rounds up, never mind two judges in the same venue somehow coming up with a six round difference. In that respect, it's fair to say that the judging wasn't on the level and that Pea was up against the dark forces. There's an interview with the two fighters along with Merchant and Lampley a week or so after the fight in which Merchant straight out says that, looking back, we now know that Whitaker basically had to win by a knockout to retain his belt against the more popular, lucrative and marketable De la Hoya, which of course was never going to happen. On that evidence, even if Whitaker had dominated or won clearly, he'd very likely have been jobbed and ripped off in any case...But he didn't dominate or win clearly, so as annoying as it is, we can't conclusively prove that he was in a no-win situation from the off. Back to the fight itself, Whitaker seemed to have De la Hoya beaten from a styles perspective, but he couldn't quite pull the trigger enough to make it count properly. He made Oscar miss a lot, but didn't make him pay enough and you ain't gonna win rounds just for defence. Oscar, as he tended to do throughout his career, went through peaks and troughs with his jab, sometimes neglecting it for no apparent reason, but he actually had reasonable success with it when he got it working. Their styles never really gelled and a lot of the rounds were coin tosses. As for the lack of a rematch. Oscar was the cash cow outside of the Heavyweights at this point, and Top Rank set a pretty hectic schedule for him around that time. After beating Whitaker in April, he was back in the ring just nine weeks later, and a fight against Camacho had already been pencilled in for September. Whitaker, despite his accomplishments, had never been a big money spinner and the fight against De la Hoya hadn't exactly been a thriller - there was no great appetite from fans to see it again. There was a perception before the fight that Whitaker was on a slight downturn in any case (struggled badly first time out with Rivera, needed a big, late comeback against Hurtado etc.) and most of the money men in the sport would have been pretty glad that the 'boring' 33-year-old had been replaced by the good-looking, marketable and much younger De la Hoya who had a more crowd-pleasing style. Oscar's schedule for the rest of 1997 was decided and there was no room for Pernell there, meanwhile Main Events didn't want to pit him against their other Welter champion, Quartey, for the WBA belt, and the Showtime-HBO standoff still hadn't properly thawed, meaning that at that stage the IBF titlist Trinidad was out of the question for Whitaker, too. He makes do with Pestryayev in late 1997, finally cajoles Main Events in to considering the Quartey fight in early 1998....But no sooner does that happen, his cokehead antics result in a year-long suspension. By the time he returns he's 35, looking even more shot and Trinidad-De la Hoya is the fight which everyone cares about and wants to see.
Wasn't as bad a robbery as Ramirez I and JCC but it was still one. It was close, but not razor thin kind of close... and Whittaker was the champ.
While not a “robbery” I think it was fairly clearly the wrong decision. Whitaker clowned too much and admired his own defensive work a tad too much. He did make Oscar look totally one handed and dumb at times. He only won rounds IMO because of age. That fight showed me in their primes Oscar gets almost shut out. I had Whitaker winning by a couple. They both did next to nothing but Whitaker looked much better and controlled it for the most part.
The fight was close.It did not look that Oscar did enough to take the title from such a great fighter.I would have been fine wifi a draw also.I did not see Oscar land a lot of powershots as some like to allege.
All the power punches that Oscar got credit for were a myth. He landed some, sure, but not the amount that gets regurgitated over and over. Most of the fabled power punches were blocked or glancing blows. The cards to me make it clear Pea couldn't win that fight without a KO, so that makes the whole tthig stink in my book. I scored it for Pea. By the way, Big Kev did a fight of the week on this fight, where many cards were submitted. If you're interested in seeing the cards of others, that might be a place to start.
Wow, what a great and interesting comment. Thanks for all the explanation man. And yeah, I totally agree that the Chavez scoring was a robbery. Pernell's resume should look much better than it does on paper. It s too bad Whittaker was not a bigger star at the time. He really should have, because despite his top notch skills, he also enjoyed to entertain the crowd and used just the right dose of provocation to spice things up. But then it's true he wasn't the only fighter at that time, hence others were more famous. Still, I wasn't even born when he fought but whenever Im about to watch one of his bout, I know I'm going to have a good time. Anyway, thanks again for the bit of history
This. I couldn't agree more. I thought he was risking letting rounds slip doing that. But after having seen the scorecards, it wouldn't have changed much. Despite the fight being close, the ridiculously wide margin the judges have Oscar shows that even if Pernell hadn't fooled around, it wouldn't have changed the outcome. But damn it must take some massive balls (and skills) to clown around like that with someone who is 4 inches taller and has a 90% KO ratio.
Yeah I didn't like how they counted so many power punches for Oscars just because at some point they "touched" Pernell. Again, had Oscar landed that many, he would have secured at least one KD. Ok thanks, I'll check the fight of the week thread
