ok, we all know this is one of the most heavily debated fights in history......everytime someones posts a thread on the opinion of the outcome its several pages long...IT WILL ALWAYS BE THAT WAY..... Was it Steeles Fault?? did Don King pay Steele off??was it Duvas Fault?? does the time matter??Was meldrick Coherent?? Should steele have kept asking if he was ok?Should the ref have used discretion and let the time run out? etc etc etc ...WE CAN GO ON ALL DAY with these scenario questions.... What about the Commentary is my question..Lampley and others are going on and on about how Taylor is beating Chavez to every punch in the book...but not talking about the atomic bombs Chavez is landing...I mean Chavez didnt break Taylors face by looking at him.... Everyone who spoke during the commentary basically had a shutout for taylor....BUT YOU LOOK AT THE TV and SEE TAYLOR LOOKING LIKE HES IN A CAR WRECK...his face is loooking crazy, swallowing blood, busted ribs....Brain damage....HOW DID THAT HAPPEN?? according to commentary Taylors superman in there.... What part did the commentary play in peoples opinions? when you watch the HBO legendary nights....all you hear is Taylor this , Taylor that...then they show a clip of the later Rounds and Chavez looks like hes going to Church and Taylor looks like he got Jumped by 20 people with bats....Taylors Falling down, walking to the wrong corner(between 11th and 12th), looks deformed!.....why wasnt lampley talling about what caused that the entire fight?? what role did the commentary serve ot cause Contraversy?? Your thoughts??
Did you not understand the question??? One more time.. What Role if any did the commentary play in the contraversy?? This thread is not about the decision, my point is that there was damage done that for some reason was hardly touched on by the commentary... My point was and even agreed by the HBO legendary nights, and Duva.. A fighters career was being ruined in that ring, with broken bones, busted kidneys and brain damage....and the commentary made it sound like he was pitching a shutout.....my question is what role did that inaccuracy play to sway peoples opinions?? not to debate if outcome was correct or not
I saw this before I started scoring fights. But even I remember it wasn't a shutout. Lamps gets a little overzealous. And I do agree. They made it sound like Taylor was winning every second of every round till the final 30 seconds. That said I do agree with the stoppage, no matter how close to the final bell.
but you are making it seem like Chavez didnt look damaged at all,HBO did give Chavez 2 rounds so it wasnt a shutout and as what you are asking for it really depends how you score fights, if you prefer the fighter whos throws and lands then its a landslide for Taylor but if you prefer the one doing the most damage then the fight wasnt that lopsided as it seemed.
Ok, that makes sense.:good ...so do you think the commentary called it even?? personally i was having Taylor ahead on points( i personally agree with stoppageIMO), but i was noticing Chavez landing hard shots that it seemed like lampley and Company were ignoring, not sure why...might have been cuz Taylor was landing so many more punches...or they didnt see those punches landed by JC, i dunno.....but it seemed IMO like a Cheerathon for Taylor, and all of a sudden u look up and Taylor looks like he jumped out of a building....i just fet like they could have been more aware of Chavezs scoring blows as well...thats all..
For the past 15 years or so, my opinion has changed on this fight from week to week or month to month. Right now, with all things taken into consideration, I can look back and say "Taylor deserved those final seconds to get his great victory," but at the same time, I can say "Taylor was getting busted up and was a badly hurt fighter. Richard Steele did a good thing by stopping it despite the time." I am so conflicted when it comes to this fight to the point where I can't give a solid opinion written in stone. When I see Taylor looking as if he had been in a car crash, part of me feels Steele made the right choice. When I see Taylor winning the early rounds and when I see how far he has fallen health wise, part of me wishes he got those final seconds. And I do not agree with Lampley when he said Taylor won the entire fight minus the final 30 seconds. Chavez was coming on real strong and doing some brutal damage to Taylor's body and head. One thing I can say for sure is that this fight will always be remembered as perhaps the most controversial in fistic history and will be debated for years and years to come.
Lampley's commentary was, as usual, incredibly biased and one-sided. At least he agreed with Harold Lederman (sp.?) when HL said that Steele made the correct decision to stop the fight. That was probably the bright spot of the evening for Lampley.
Commentary often plays a role in people's perception of fights - that said, Taylor was clearly winning a decision, and should have been given the chance to last the final seconds, which he most certainly would have. :nod
Great post. You need to look no further than this bout to see the whole gambit of problems that Lampley has during his commentating career. First, he tends to have "commenting bias" for one fighter throughout the bout, where he will gladly marvel and announce every landed blow, blocked punch or combination thrown whilst comletely ignoring the other fighter. Theres literally times when Lampley is applauding Meldrick or telling a story about him when he should have interrupted himself to announce a SOLID shot or combination landed by Chavez. Then, he goes absolutely berserk almost calling the stoppage the worst thing he has ever seen in his time with boxing, only to later retract his statement and actually say that Steele made the right decision. I believe that, if given the opportunity to look back on bouts in their whole, as he got to look back at the stoppage, Lampley would seriously change his tune most of the time. Play by Play commentating is supposed to count on the action, not just the action of one fighter.
I noticed when watching the fight that When Chavez was landing, Lampley and Company were not pointing it out hardly, i also think that ws partly because when Chavez would land, taylor would immediately land after him....and maybe cuz Taylor was landing more punches, but i still think they could have called it more unbiased.....
Lampley is the hbo hype machine period. When jL starts his nuthugging it's hard for him not to blow a load.
The commentary was definitely biased in favor of Taylor....I don't know why, but it was. Taylor was winning more rounds than Chavez, but it was much closer than the HBO people had it. The one thing that made the commentary look ridiculous was when, during the 12th round, Lampley said something like "Julio Cesar Chavez has less than three minutes to come up with an unlikely stoppage, and right now it doesn't look like he's got the stuff to get it done." Shortly after Lampley's comment, Chavez showed that he did indeed have "the stuff to get it done"....and the commentators conspicuous silence suggested that they knew that they had spoken too soon.
