Chavez V WHitaker: Who doesnt think it was a robbery?

8 rounds to 4 is about the closest acceptable score I can see. I had it 9 to 3, as most did. Chavez winning 4 of the first 6 rounds is ludicrous.

 

I just downloaded it and IMHO there is no way to give it to Chavez. I agree Chavez landed some bodyshots, but other than that? He rarely landed anything on Whitaker's head. And even when he did, most of the time Pea was already doing some momevent to minimize the damage.

While Whitaker was also missing sometimes, he landed a lot of clean punches as well. Punches that Chavez haven's seen (or maybe have seen, but too late to do anything). Just count how many times you have seen his head snappped back and his rhytm was broken by a crisp counter by Whitaker.

The fight score is based on several factors. The most important part is effective agressiveness, so you can't score the fight for Chavez without disregarding the part about being effective. There is not a single factor (defence, ring generalship) you can really give to him. Sometimes it happens that incompetent judges keep giving the rounds to a fighter who is just coming forward, and it looks like it was the case here.

While I have seen many decisions even worse than this one, it is still a robbery.

 

Thats more or less the way I see it.

I thought Whitaker deserved the win but Ive seen worse.
Chavez never won any rds by an undisputed margin where as Whitaker won rds 3,7 & 8 really convincingly, especially 7 & 8. Every other rd was debatable to a certain extent but all in all, Whitaker won IMO.
This fight was the start of the decline of Chavez & the start of Whitaker`s reign as mr p4p, something mr Chavez knew a lot about since 1987.

:thumbsup

:thumbsup

 

Good post TIGEREDGE. :good

No way that fight was a robbery and a one way schooling from Whitaker. Like you said, there are some people with their head way up Sweet Pea's ass they can't see that the fight is much closer than they think.

I scored the fight a draw, but have absolutely no problem with Whitaker edging it by a round or two, but to call it one sided, now that's ludicrous.

 

As a Chavez fan, both at the time of the fight and now rewatching it, I always seem to turn up with a score of 8-4 for Sweet Pea.

 

I've watched the fight a good hundred times I reckon (not an exaggeration).

Guess I'm yet to extract my head from Whitaker's ass.

9-3 Pea.

 

If you've really watched it that many times, your head is further up than just Pea's ass......right up to his intestines I would gather......

Wow, seriously Scientist, I dont believe I've watched any fight in its entirety more than about 6 or 7 times.......most of the time, much less than that.

Do you re-score everytime you watch???

 

Yes I do.

And yes my head is up his ass.

And why the hell not? There's worse things you can do than extensively watch the best fighter in the last 20 years go to work.

 

Sweet. I'll second you on the above. Whitaker is among a rare tier of fighters who could do it all. And any boxing fan out there who doesn's admire and appreciate Whitaker's skills needs to take up another sport during their times of leisure.

Whitaker dominated his opponents. He defused the situations when his opponent was looking for a brawl. The man could adjust accordingly. Whitaker wasn't really in the hurt business. Well he was, but thats not how he went about his business. Whitaker was in the 'outclassing' business.

I have my own person criteria in what impresses me in a fighter. Take away a boxers power and what does he have? Landing one shot to put the lights out doesn't impress me as much as it does with others.

 

Well said Rob.

Whitaker was indeed in the outclassing business. He beat fighters down mentally first and physically second. He was intent on humiliating them and schooling them on what boxing skill really is. He'd take a fighter's strength, rage and power and render them inept and impotent.

A comment by Greg Haugen would mirror what a lot of fighters felt fighting Whitaker. He said he never felt so embarassed in all his life as when he fought Whitaker. It wasn't so much that he was being hurt as it was that he was being repeatedly hit and he was helpless to do anything about it.

 

The rematch with Ramirez was what I would call boxings equivalent of a comedy show. Whitaker's variety, punch volume, defense, and overall domination was so outstanding it had me in fits of laughter.

Willie Pep probably never done a similar job on journeyman.

 

Yeah, it was a great showing, particularly because of of the hometown crowd participation. That was Pea's coming out party.

I love seeing guys like Whitaker and Locche fight in their hometowns and have the crowds mix cheers with laughter. These guys were thespians. They had a taste for the burlesque and zany side of things and ENTERTAINED crowds.

I can never understand when people say fighters like Whitaker are boring. There's hardly a more entertaining fighter imo.

 

I agree. Nothing more entertaing than a magician within the ropes. Locche I haven't seen a lot of compared to Whitaker. He wasn't as technically as sound as Whitaker, but probably more unique defensively.

My taste in fighters has always been boxers or boxer/punchers. And if you notice 'boxer/punchers' not the other way around. Boxing first and foremost, punching comes secondary.

Roberto Duran, Pernell Whitaker, Larry Holmes, Lennox Lewis, Muhammad Ali, Donald Curry, Jose Napoles, Oscar De La Hoya, Willie Pep, Ray Robinson, Marvin Hagler, Bernard Hopkins, Juan Manuel Marquez, Mike McCallum, Thomas Hearns. Thats pretty much my taste.

Joe Frazier, George Foreman, Kostya Tszyu, Felix Trinidad, Mike Tyson, etc. Don't do it for me.