I think this guys defense was the best ever

I haven't spent too much time anywhere, when you look at how balanced our respective opinions are on fighters across the board, well, you tell me who's soaking up crap.

I rate fighters accordingly. Anbody will tell you i consistently rate Mayweather very highly in discussions in the CLASSIC forum. That was a bit of a shitty way out trying to claim my bias for retired fighters. It's quite well known and accpeted to not be the case.

I've given my opinion, it's backed up by shitloads of film, you're picking certain bouts to prove your point.

 

Wrong, the scoring criteria states that a greater emphasis must be placed on offense.
.....so unless the aggressor is just not making contact with you, like was the case with Whitaker-Nelson, then thats the only way to win a fight striclty emphasizing defense.

 

Is this a definite though? If so i'll accept, but from what i've always known boxing is one of the most subjective sports ever in terms of determining a winner.

Nice touch on how you ignored my comment about the Chavez fight, i'll take that as a victory for me.

 

I did'nt say you had a bias for retired fighters, I said the Classic section does.........and I know you spend some time there.......nothing at all wrong with that, in fact its great that you know your past boxing enough to spend some quality time talking boxing in the Classic section.

......all I'm saying is that alot of the opinions there are bound to rub off on people.

I'm generalizing of course, not saying that its specifically has happened to you.....maybe it has and maybe it has'nt.

 

Okay then ut you did specifically say me though! Me soaking up crap spending too much time there is pretty particular.

Okay, i'm fine just agreeing to disagree.

 

I've debated Chavez-Whitaker so much, I no longer care to debate at lenghth about it.

I'll say a few things about Chavez Whitaker......
Defensively, Whitaker was great......whats neglected is that for the most part of the fight, so was Chavez, and he was the one ramming foward being the non-stop aggressor.
Its harder to play defense when you're advancing at the pace Chavez was, in comparison to Whitaker who was running most of the night.
Yes, running, next time you watch the fight, pay attention to every round and not a select few, for the most part Whitaker was a runner, a nonstop runner.


Offensively speaking, Whitaker landed the best shots of the night against Chavez. Only probleim is that they translate to a select two, three rounds at the most.
Whitaker was'nt consistent offensively round after round, and in boxing, you have to score each round "independent' of the other rounds......

There were too many rounds where Whitaker did just about zilch offensively......and so at the end of the night, if you score as you should, round by round, its not hard at all to see how someone would have the fight closer than most have been brainwashed to believe that it was.

I scored it a draw, and cant find fault with anyone that scored it within a point or two of that.


You like scoring defense Teeto, next time you see the Chavez-Whitaker fight, try it just one time and look at the whole fight paying emphasis on captivating Chavez' defense.........alot harder playing defense when offensively, you're letting it hang out.:good

 

I don't like scoring defense, i just score it, along with everything else, because that's how fights should be scored, with all things considered.

I know how to observe a fight, i don't need to watch it again, i already have many times. Last time i did, my conclusion was that the whole fight is closely contested, it's a tough fight, but i don't give even rounds as i don't agree with them and i lutimately had the fight by 8 points for Whittaker. You're the first person i know who scored it a draw bar the two judges that night. I'm pretty shocked.

The prosecution has no further questions.

 

I'm off to bed now Divac. In brief, i thought Whittaker was better in all facets of the game over the length of the fight. And Whittaker stylistically is a complete technician and not a one dimensional defensive minded fighter. I think it's embarrassing to think so personally.

Anyway, goodnight.

 

Pep was the best, then Loche, Whitaker and Benitez

 

Well, you just stated that the fight was closely contested. A tough fight.

Myself, like most official judges would do when a round is close and tough to score, will side with the aggressor.

The only time where aggression means little to me is when the boxer on the backfoot is "consistently" throwing and exhibiting a meaninful counterpuncing attack.
Punches being thrown on the backfoot that have zip, mustard on them.
......for the most part, that was not Pernell Whitaker.



You had Whitaker by 8 points, 10 rounds to 2?

.......some Whitaker nut swingers did'nt have it that wide.:nut

 

I'm looking at these videos, and truly how Whitaker makes these fighters miss is amazing........

......but truly, look at the so many times that fighters are being made to miss badly by Whitaker......I say well over 90 percent of the time there is'nt any return fire by Whitaker.
This was a major turnoff to fight judges.

Just the beggining of the first video, the Ramirez and Nelson fights only has Whitaker punching back after Ramirez and Nelson have stopped punching.

When Whitaker is making most of these better fighters miss, he's not making them pay.......he mounts up the points landing the jab after his opponent is through missing their combination.

Amazing how Whitaker makes them miss that badly, but i'd be more fascinated with him, and he would have made me a big fan of his if he would actually and immediately counter off the miss, ala JMM.

 

I like you divac but that is bloody rich coming from you.

You spew some absolute tripe when it comes to Chavez and Whitaker...Loving the former and straight up hating the latter..its at least comical at times Ill give you that.

 

Well you're trying to say that your strict criteria is the definite one to be used, i view boxing as a broad topic and therefore the scoring of such bouts is subjective.

And you're coming off as an idiot now. I said:

a) the fight was closely contested but i saw a clear winner to every round and therfore awarded them as i saw

b) my card ultimately was a massive 8 point margin for Whittaker

c) Whittaker over the stretch of the fight was better in every department on the night

So no more putting words in my mouth because it's embarrassing. My balanced posts sit on this thread for everyone to see, whereas you are trying to make out that i'm a Whittaker nut-hugger now that i already exposed you for trying to claim i have classic bias. I admire both fighters, i admire Mayweather, i call this as i see it. It's the biggest sign of weakness when you bring up favouritism and so called bias because your opponent is debating in a fashion you can't handle.

Peace.

 

I didn't know he was a Chavez fan, i wouldn't have bothered if i did. I understand now.

 

I think the moral of the story is that if you walk forward in straight lines and windmill, you win the fight by default.

Just have punch stats and decide who's the winner.