Al Bernstein's scorecard for Whitaker-Chavez: 118-110 Whitaker

Nonsense Scientist!

When there is a round that is pretty close punchwise in meaningful connects, aggression is one of the criteria that a judge looks for in awarding a round.

Lets see the judge thinks, should I really be giving this very close round to the fighters who is going out of his way to avoid exchanges..

Dont pretend that does'nt exist in boxing, you know damn well that more often that not the aggressor is going to get awarded in such round......
....but God help boxing, that should'nt be happening in a Pernell Whitaker fight!!!:roll:

 

Do you not understand reading comprehension???

In a round where neither the fighter coming foward or the fighter fighting on the backfoot, when neither are quite effective, who do you think a judge will side with???

Its simple Scientist, the judges gave Chavez enough rounds to get a draw, because in many of the rounds that you would point to Chavez being ineffective, Pernell Whitaker was ineffective as well!

I pointed it out earlier that people as yourself were judging Chavez on a harsher offensive criteria than Whitaker.
If you say Chavez was'nt being effective in his aggression, judge Pernell Whitaker by the same criteria, and do so by judging each and every damn round individually!


YES YES YES YES, I know that there were two rounds in that fight where Pernell Whitaker laid some hurt to JC Chavez.......
.....but I got news for you Scientist.....a judge still has to turn in 10 other scorecards at the end of the 10 other rounds!

 

In a Pernell Whitaker fantasy world you would score such rounds even.
.....this however is professional boxing (not amatuer, different scoring criteria)

Talk about Whitaker being active, how effective does one consider this activity when for much of the fight, his punch output came as he was moving his legs backward.....here's a fighter who is simultaneously punching and backpedaling all at the same time.....figure out how effective those punches could be!:roll:
....talk about effectiveness, apply that criteria to Pernell's punchoutput as well!

Sorry friend, but you and I both know that a judge more often than not is going to award the aggressor in the type of round you describe with little effective scoring output by both fighters......to deny that is to see it soley by a Whitaker's fan perspective!




Both fighters land an equal amount of effective punches in a round.
One did his scoring by being the clear aggressor, and the other by backpedalling.
.....while there was lull in the punching output, the aggressor vehemently chased, while the backpedaler vehemently ran away and deliberately avoided having to exchange.

In my view, the aggressor in this case wants to keep the punching exchanges going throughout the round, and the runner clearly is trying to keep them to a minumum.

I'm sorry, but whether you like it or not, or whether its expressed clearly in the scoring criteria or not.
That round my friend is going to go to the aggressor 99 times out of 100!!
I can understand how or why a Pernell Whitaker fan would'nt like that to be so......but if you're truthful with yourself, you know thats the way professional judges look at it as well.

 

It has to be a bad decision when someone posts this:

...and no one bothers to ask 'who to?'. :good

 

Another Myth, the "controversy" James Toney vs Dave Tiberi... Do I need to do another scorecard round by round for that one and for Michael Spinks - Larry Holmes II too? Let's take all the spiders from the mind web and focus on the real problems in boxing here... But I won't start a thread with those subjects, you'll have to do it if you can be so kind.

Anyway, here is another view on Chavez vs Whitaker round by round and from Chavez fans POV: http://chavez360.com/chavez/record/089.php
To sweet_scientist and from Wikipedia, I dare to quote and expect ESB moderators to open this exception given the circumstances upon which I would have no other alternative but to do this : "After the fight, most sports writers agreed that Whitaker was robbed of a victory in a bout in which he outboxed his opponent from beginning to end, but many saw it as bias due to Chávez's popularity and the expectation that he would knock out Whitaker in an all-out war. In any case, the draw became the first blemish on Chávez's record, as he had won all his precious fights.
Thank you everybody.

 

Yes, divac has mentioned points that cannot be contested: In the Live Telecast, Dr. Ferdie Pacheco often referred to Chavez in a "desperate" struggle to come back from behind in points to avoid the first loss on his unblemished record as soon as those 7th, 8th rounds finished ( the previous rounds referred as going back and forth but still, highlighting Pernell's defense and overlooking Chavez offense) and Whitaker as definitely winning on Ring Generalship, making Chavez fight his fight and even, pummeling on Chavez which, given the knowledge of both players is hardly the perfect portrait of what happened even in rounds 7 and 8... It's perfectly conceivable that Al Bernstein was scoring for what Chavez was not able to do than for what Pernell actually did on offense.

Yes, I state that Boxing Scores should be made not so much according to neutralization, defensive strategies and not on uneffective aggressiveness either, but with a clear emphasis on Clean Punching not definitely sticking a feather fisted right lead numerous times on your opponent as you are on the back foot, holding with the right arm and "scoring" with left body shots or turning your opponent opponent and pressing him against the ropes with your body weight to give the indication you are coming forward.
Still there is this perception like William Detloff puts it - "It was, for anyone who saw it, a complete victory for Whitaker against the man regarded generally as the best fighter on the planet. That the judges scored it a draw was an abomination but it wasn't the first time it had happened to Whitaker."
That was what transpired from HBO's post-fight analysis for the Hoya-Mayweather showdown which is recent and commonly known - there should be given more credit to who's looking to make the fight... Otherwise, all guys who were underdogs like Whitaker was against Chavez and make it a competitive bout, will be always on the edge of claiming unfairness if they don't win and that is non-sensical...

On Show time Telecast from the New York Times Archives :

Albert and his partners, Ferdie Pacheco and Bobby Czyz, should have been more indignant over the majority draw. This was major news. They criticized the decision, but did not delineate the cozy connection between Don King, the promoter behind Chavez, and Jose Sulaiman, the president of the World Boxing Council. But, then, Pacheco and Czyz are paid by King.
"It's not their job to be indignant," said Jay Larkin, SET's executive producer. "I don't give them access to speculate or editorialize.

Czyz was refreshingly smart and articulate, far better than HBO's George Foreman. In the 10th he said, "I wonder what the odds in Vegas were on a draw?" He claimed to lip-read Whitaker's post-fight worry -- "They didn't rob me, did they?"-- which could make him an expert witness at Ray Mercer's trial on charges of making a bribe offer during his fight with Jesse Ferguson. When the draw was announced, Albert said of Whitaker, "He can't believe it. And neither can I." Czyz's deft followup: "I can't believe it. But I can."


More on Whitaker by ESPN Sports and on what I said about not liking his style : http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/boxing/news/story?id=2786103

 

No. Stop overrating the impact of your posts. They're not that important.

 

In that case, I thank you cause I have no problem with Chavez-Whitaker, Toney-Tiberi or Holmes-Spinks II and that spares me from the trouble... I don't know about the impact of my posts since they can only cause impact on someone else, but since you say they do and still they are not that important to the matter suggested by the thread starter ( which is not Toney vs Tiberi btw), I will stop immediately posting in this thread as you wish. Goodbye everybody.

 

Without knowing you just made my point.

You just said it, and I've always pointed to the fact that two of the rounds in the fight were big enough for Whitaker that it instilled an imprint in a viewers mind.
.....an imprint that if you were not scoring the fight round by round as a judge scores it, it will have you believing that Pernell won the fight going away.

In so many of the rounds, Whitakers only punchoutput was as he was in full backpedal mode.
.....as I've said in a previous post, how does one rate that in terms of effectiveness?
If one would think it was effective, then you'd score the round for Whitaker, personally I dont rate it as effective at all.
I would rate Chavez foward aggression along with his body shot combinations (which many who scored for Whitaker overlooked) more effective than Whitakers punchoutput in backtrack mode.

You point to Chavez getting tagged up and missing.....I did'nt see an extroadinary amount of missing on Chavez" part, at least not any more than what Pernell Whitaker himself was missing.
That aspect of the fight is overlooked as well.....alot of folks would want to emphasize Pernell's extroardinary talent of making a fighter miss. That when Chavez did miss, it was overemphasized.
.....but when Whitaker was missing and not finding the mark, did Chavez get the same credit????
He did'nt because in most peoples view that is'nt a Chavez trademark, he's stereotyped as a brawler/punisher that when he does other good things that are more to the finesse side, its overlooked and non-credited.

You might not want to admit it Sweet Pea, but next time you watch the Chavez-Whitaker match, put away Whitaker's rose colored glasses away and look at it from Chavez' perspective as well.
Pay attention to Chavez' great defense as well, and credit him for it as you would have credited Pernell Whitaker.

Take the rose colored glasses off Pea and see the light!

 

Scientist, I love to watch fighters use the ring and move around it as you have described......if he is manuevering the ring and enticing the other to throw punches while they are visibly looking to consistently counter them and counter them effectively, then I love watching that style.

Take for example what Juan Manuel Marquez did to Manny Pacquiao.
Juan Manuel controlled distance, he controlled space, and he was effectively not only looking to, but he was countering the pants off of Manny Pacquiao with meaningful hurtful shots.
While Marquez was countering Pacquiao, his feet were planted to the ground, thus there was force behind his punches that I would call effective.

Consistently, Pernell Whitaker was'nt punching with his feet planted to the ground.
.....and I'm not looking for Whitaker to plant his feet and stay in the pocket to continue to punch.
JMM certainly did'nt do that vs Pacquiao.

Marquez imo was effective because with his lateral movement, he would stop on a dime and let his fist fly with enough leverage behind his shots that would consistently drive Manny Pacquiao back and to the ropes.
The key word being consistent here. Whitaker did some of that, but he was neglecting to do it consistently on a round by round basis.
There were several rounds in Chavez-Whitaker where Whitaker failed to take pause for one second his backpedaling motions.
If you're constantly backpedaling and dont stop even for a second to get off a combination, it is'nt going to be very effective.

At least thats how I view what is effectiveness coming from a fighter who is fighting off the backfoot.
Juan Manuel Marquez is a fine example of a fighter who consistently is effective in his punch output fighting while moving back.
In most instances, a sure sign of a fighter being effective while not being the aggressor is that he will impede the foward aggression of the other fighter.
Whitaker did'nt do that consistently and round by round to Chavez as JMM did to Manny Pacquiao!

 

We'll always disagree on that my friend.....for me for two rounds Whitaker dominated, and for four others, he did just enough clean and effective punches to merit the rounds.
Truthfully thats how I saw the fight!


.....and C'mon Scientist, Whitaker went complete rounds without so much as taking a foward step!
I would'nt be suprised if I reviewed the tape and see Whitaker off the ground as he threw out punches!