Just something i'd like to say about Pernell Whitaker....

Ricardo Lopez didn't face anything above what you would call a good boxer. He looked great for sure, but who did he face that pushed him? Calling him a pure boxer is all well and good, but he never proved it at the highest level.

Now, as for DLH-Tito not being pure boxing, I agree, the last four rounds weren't, but the first 8 were, and DLH made Tito look one dimensional. As for Leonard-Hagler, Hagler won by a point in my book, but unlike in the Whitaker Chavez fight, Hagler was actually landing about as much as Leonard was, and with harder punches.

Julio not only didn't land harder punches, he didn't land anywhere near as much, and hence, why that is proclaimed such a robbery, whereas Leonard-Hagler is merely seen as controversial.

 

I'm more a believer in even rounds now than I was when I started scoring, and than when I put in cards for fights like Whitaker-Chavez.

I just have seen too many bull**** decisions handed down through splitting hairs that really say nothing about the outcome of a fight and so I'm reluctant to 'find' rounds to give to fighters when the round was close and could have gone either way.

If I was to rescore Whitaker-Chavez now, I think the point disparity would stay roughly the same, even if I did call some of the closer rounds even.

For example, I could say rounds 5,9 and 12 were evenish, and I'd still come out with Whitaker a 5 point winner. (I gave Chavez round 12 and Whitaker rounds 5 and 9).

Whitaker was the only fighter that clearly won more than a couple of rounds in that fight - it wasn't just two rounds as you make out Vlade. No one in there right mind could give Chavez (or even hold even) rounds 3,4,7,8,10 or 11. You could make a case for Chavez winning all the rest, but by the same token you can make a case for Whitaker winning all bar probably rounds 1 and 2, and I still see people giving one of those two to Whitaker on some cards, so go figure.

 

u mean first 9, oscar clearly won the 9th round. he began running in round 10

 

Agreed. I have watched that round a few times as some had it for Trinidad. De La Hoya IMO won that round, no question.

 

Actually I did. you see unlike whitaker, Pep would fire away on the inside with smooth fluid rapid 4-5 punch combos then bounce away, then repeat the same thing. pep tore up opponents on the inside. whitaker in some of his biggest fights blew it by not giving his best efforts and clowning the fight away.

 

Cough *Sammy Angott* Cough

Which fights, you're talking in multiples. So name them?

The Chavez fight? Mate if Pep-Saddler II was held at the Alamodome in 1993, the winner would have been Sandy Saddler.

The Ramirez fight? Come now, that was a joke and you know it.

The only fight where his clowning cost him was the DLH fight, and he still arguably won it.

 

Those guys committed and hit a helluva lot harder than Whitaker tho. Hagler had solid power on every shot, as did Chavez, and Holyfield was sure no slouch either. Leonard was a damn good puncher at 147. These guys aren't even comparable to Whitaker.

 

I enjoy boxer punchers, I enjoy a guy who comes to fight and take a chance, guys who dare to be great.

I like stick and move, not the slap and run. I enjoy fighters like Leanord, Duran, Hagler, Chavez, Tszyu, Trinidad, Arguello, Rosario, Donaire, Abraham, Pavlik, Cotto, Margarito, Paquiao, Barrera, Morales, Sanchez, Marciano, Charles, Moore, Benitez, Ali, Frazier, Foreman, Gomez, Holmes
Holyfield, Bowe,Corrales, Castillo,

I like action fighters= power, skill and guts. I like guys who show up and deliver and provide excitement. I hate safety first guys who dont deliver and bore and deliver sparring sessions in the big fights.

 

When he scores fights like Tito-DLH for Tito, Whitaker-DLH for DLH by 6 points and has fights like RJJ-Tito and Whitaker-Chavez scored as draws, can there be any other conclusion?

To me, and to most, a punch, even if it hasn't got that much leverage behind it, is still better than an outright miss, especially if it lands flush.

 

You asked who was a better pure boxer, I gave you a definintion of what pure boxing in my view is.......and pure boxing in my view is not a fighter who contstantly runs around the ring, stalling for time, and having no intention to even try to exhert an effective offensive effort.....
.....again, Whitaker did not do this for the entire fight vs Chavez, but he did it enough to lose 6 rounds on my card.

I think you'll find that I'm very consistent when I score fights......running, stalling, and having no intention to put forth an offensive effort in a round does'nt buy the round from me.

.....a recent example that I went against the grain was the Trinidad-Jones fight......Jones was a complete staller and limited his offensive output.....clowning, and signalling to anyone that would listen, that Tito's bodyshots were not having an effect on him......

.....apparently the judges and most observers, took his word on it.....I however did'nt. I saw a fighter in Trinidad that was working and working hard in his efforts....and he was landing loads of bodyshots.
....whether they had an effect on Jones does'nt matter to me. Trinidad was throwing those shots with leverage, and something behind them, and so he got the credit on my scorecard.
I gave Trinidad most of the rounds in the first half of the fight.

.....and you know what, I'm not at all afraid to get criticized for scoring that fight 7-5 Tito......the two knockdowns by Jones having my scorecared dead even by fights end.

To me, the punches dont necessarily have to hurt the opponent for me to give full credit for them (so you dont have to be a big puncher to catch my eye and give a fighter credit on my scorecard), more importantly they have to be thrown with leverage, and with the intent for them to do damage.

The intent for them to tap an opponents head and score points in the way the amatuer rules go, is'nt the way its done by proffesional rules.

.....although, to answer Robbi's post on Medina's fight with Scott Harrison......
.....I did'nt see the Medina-Harrison fight Robbi, but I did see Medina's fight with Johnny Tapia, which was probably quite similar.

Medina to put it mildly is a lousy puncher. He's a complete arm punching slapper, no doubt.
.....but Medina did beat Tapia on my card by purely just slapping, because Tapia just could'nt get in position to even punch, he was just chasing and not even throwing.

Chavez against Whitaker was landing, he was'nt consistently landing clean shots, but shots landed even partially I do count as a score.
I've debated this with Scientist at lenghth before, I dont even want to get started with it now, except to say that the dilemma in Chavez-Whitaker is how much credence to give a tap or an armpunch as opposed to a partially landed shot that had steam behind it.
I favor the fighter exherting the effort and landing the partial score with steam behind it.......thus my score for Chavez-Whitaker adds up to a draw!

 

Do you still have your round by round for Tito-Jones?

Of all your scorecards, I reckon that is the most bizarre. There is no way known Tito won 7 rounds. He had some success early with his body shots, which everyone acknowledges and gives him about 3 perhaps 4 rounds for, but then he got his ass beat up.

Roy postured like a tool like he did in the third Tarver fight, but unlike in the third Tarver fight, he was landing some shots and putting the hurt on Tito. Pretty much everyone has that fight wide for Jones, by about 6 points.

 

Just looked at my past post history to see if it dated back to Jones-Tito, but it only goes as far as April.........
As you know, I dont save my cards.....which I was as diciplined as you to do so Scientist......but I usually dont discuss fights round by round that have long passed.....usually its a waist of time that does'nt change anybodies minds.

Round by rounds I feel are best discussed when the fight has just occured.....as I was being ridiculed by some on this board for my Trinidad-Jones score, I offered, but nobody took me up on it.

Would'nt make much difference in this particular fight anyway Scientist.....when Trinidad kept busy with a consistent workrate, he took the round from Jones, as Jones was'nt firing back....when Trinidad needed time for a wind, which was often during the second half of the fight, Jones would find a rhythm and bounce jabs and shots off of Trinidad.
A few close round, but not a particularly hard fight to score for me.

Imo, within the range of 7-5 either way is acceptable, but beyond that, I'm just not seeing it.

You might not agree, but this fight may be a case where a fight fan looks and see's that Jones shots are moving Trinidad alot more than Trinidad's move him......in the process because of it, the fight fan stops looking at the round itself, and automatically assumes Jones won it.

"Trinidad's shots are not moving Jones, he's got to be losing that round.".......that type of thought process.

You probably dont agree as you scored it big I believe for Jones.....but thats the way I saw it!

 

Fair enough. I enjoy those in your list as well.

But I hope you weren't thinking of Pernell when you said slap and run (that would be Joe Calzaghe).

 

Had Tito not being knock downed twice in that bout, he would have been the clear winner to you Divac ?

 

Jones-Trinidad wasn't even close. Competitive, yes.