Has Mayweather surpassed Whitaker?

I'll give posters the benefit of the doubt when they show the type of analysis which merits it. When someone comes spinning nothing but what can be gleaned from looking up boxrec, I'm going to call them out on it. I might be wrong, but they will have to prove it to me, and then I'll eat my humble pie. Brownpimp is notorious for NEVER analysing the content of any fight and spewing forth empty facts without content.

 

One of the worst robberies ever and you believe it was a draw?! :hi:

 

I do judge De La Hoya the same way. I believe he lost to Quartey, beat Mosley in the rematch, and beat Trinidad, doesn't change anything for him, because that's pretty much the light most see him in.

I argued the DLH win, and then said it was understandable of someone didn't see it that way, but that his other wins make up for it. The fact is, noone except for a dunce believes he lost or drew with Chavez or Ramirez. Those are clear cut wins for him. The Oscar fight is arguable.

 

Well, I don't agree with changing the outcome of anything but a decision. I'll always give credit on a performance though, which is why, as I put to bronwpimp less eloquently, I judge a fighter based on what they actually did, rather than what is written on paper.

 

I somewhat agree. However, if you watch a fight and think the fighter won when the judges saw it differently, press row saw it differently, 90% of a forum saw it differently, he was outlanded by 70-120 shots, etc...then you should probably look at yourself and admit that you most likely hate the fighter in question.

In other words, there is certainly a line where the subjective ends and the bias begins.

 

Even though I'm the opposite, I can respect your opinion. Whitaker wasn't one who put bums on seats. The general public looked at someone like Whitaker and they seen negavitity.

The Whitaker v Nelson fight was held at the Caesars Pavillion. Capacity around 7/8,0000.

The Rivera I fight was held outdoors on the Island of St Marten. Capacity around 2/3,000.

Only when Whitaker fought the likes of Chavez or De La Hoya did his fights capture the imagination of the general public. Also when he fought in Virginia against the likes of Ramirez and McGirt did he draw sizeable crowds, in world title terms anyway.

 

Sure, some opinions are unreasonable, but so long as they can be argued for within the relevant scoring criteria they deserve to be heard and considered.

 

:good which is why I enjoy coming to these forums! Who likes to hear the same opinions and analysis over and over.....:dead

 

Most certainly, and I agree. Even then, some will take a huge subjective leap or even contradict themselves in an attempt to cover up their bias.

Case and point. A few years ago in the debate over DLH vs Whitaker, Widdow Maker argued that while Whitaker may have landed and threw more, DLH landed the harder shots, and therefore his punches carried more weight in the scoring. I disagreed considering the margin that he was outlanded and the defensive wizardry Whitaker displayed, which is also part of scoring.

A couple of months later when in discussion about Mosley-DLH II, Widdow Maker posed the argument that DLH landed more, and despite Mosley landing the harder more telling shots, he felt DLH should have gotten the nod. I immediately pointed out to him the discrepancy in how he had previously argued. This did not go over well with him, and he decided to play a game of semantics.

This is where I feel that while someone can make a concise argument, there can certainly still be open and easily interpreted bias.

 

This is EXACTLY the point I am trying to make. There is no way of ensuring consistency once personal bias comes into play. For the record I think that the whitaker gang (not derogatory BTW: Robbi, Sweet Pea, Sweet Scientist ect) are pretty spot on in their scoring. But, if you guys are content to use this method of analysis, then it means people with quite possibly less accurate scoring methods can also do the same, and in reality should NOT be critisized for it. Simply because they are doing EXACTLY the same thing as you guys are.

 

Difference is, the robberies we are arguing in favor of are clear as day, and everyone agrees with them. It's not like I'm throwing Trinidad in there.

 

Fair enough then if you have had arguements in the past with him and have realised this. It just isn't the first time I have seen assumptions being made that is all. I know that i have personally had the same done to me, simply because I had a different opinion on a particular fight to one of you. All of a sudden I was accused of never watching the fight. The attitude is a fairly ignorant one. It assumes that if anyone doesn't agree with your analysis that they must have never watched the fight, because your opinion is the only correct one. Anyway, just my 2 cents.

 

I guess this makes me part of the Jones gang:deal

But seriously, I value consistancy above all other things. Most who know me know this, which is why I can argue with a Pacfan in one thread about Pacquiao, and then argue with someone who despises Pacquiao in another thread. It's not about the fighter, its about the point being made.

 

I can see that for sure, but the point is you are leaving a big hole in your arguement for anyone else to exploit on the same basis. I wouldn't say the Quartey fight and the 2nd Mosley fight was a blow out btw... Would you?

 

That's always that possibility when someone likes a certain fighter. Of course, each fight does deserve to be judged on its own merits, and sometimes distinctions can be drawn from one fight to the next.

I myself, being a Pernell Whitaker fan, and not a fan of Mayweather, could be accused of bias for Whitaker and bias against Mayweather.

Taking Mayweather's and Whitaker's fights with DLH for example:

I felt that Whitaker beat DLH in a fight which was close and could be argued either way, and felt that DLH beat Mayweather in a fight that was close and could have gone either way.

In both fights DLH was outlanded, in both fights, Whitaker and Mayweather were the more defensive fighters. Mayweather landed even more power punches than Whitaker against DLH and was hit with less than Whitaker was against DLH.

One might say, surely, it's just bias that's operatng here. If you think Whitaker won, you should think that Mayweather won for all the more reason.

But I think that certain things are distinguisable in the fight.

1. I think that DLH had much better defense against PBF than he did against Pea, and was able to block or semi deflect most of Mayweather's shots, rendering many of them ineffective.

2. I think Mayweather was actually hit more flush by punches and punches in combination on certain occasions, than Whitaker was in his fight with DLH. I don't remember Whitaker being hit in combination all fight against DLH. Mayweather was being pounded to the body and ocassionally taking head shots in combination from DLH.

3. In many close rounds when Oscar chose to flurry he had more success hitting Mayweather than he did Whitaker. Those flurries, whilst counting against him in the Whitaker fight (because they went towards Whitaker's defense and not Oscar's effective aggression) counted positively for DLh against PBF becuase they showed some effective aggression and he was landing some punches.

4. I think Whitaker controlled the pace of the fight against DLH and made him fight the fight on his terms. DLH tried to make switches to southpaw to trick Whitaker and got dumped on his ass. He tried to steal rounds with flurries and hit nothing but air. He couldn't pin Whitaker to the ropes and work him over and fought the fight circling in ring center, not taking advantages of his greater size. With DLH's fight against PBF however, the argument as to who the ring general was and who fought who's fight is much more ambiguous.

And just another side point, I have never argued that Whitaker beat DLH BECAUSE he landed more punches. I may have brought up the point that Whitaker landed more punches than DLH in counter to someone saying Whitaker did nothing offensively, or Whitaker didn't land anything etc. but never in itself as an argument for Pea winning.

Is there merit to these arguments? Or is it all semantics to cover up my bias?