Pernell Whitaker vs. Oscar De La Hoya. Was Whitaker robbed?

Why? I don´´t think it was a robbery but had Pernell winning but there is no vote for that so i voted yes because it´s closest to what i think.

 

It reminded me of Hopkins-Calzaghe in a way, the better and more talented boxer lost because of purely physical disadvantages. In Hopkins case, age meant he didn't have the stamina/workrate/energy to maintain his performance throughout the whole fight. In Whitaker's case, size played a vital role. He wasn't strong enough to push DLH back or hurt him or take control. Ultimately, Sweet P looked the better fighter on the night, but DLH racked up enough points to sneak it. No, no robbery here.

 

oscar outlanded whitaker over 2 to 1 ratio in power punches.

 

I agree. i dont see how anyone could say whitaker was robbed, he didnt do enough to establish he won the fight "Clearly"

 

As some may know already, i had it a draw, but i just dont know about Pea being docked 1 for the headbutt being justified, i'll say now that i may be wrong, but i thought it might have been harsh.

I might aswell vote yes as i thought he was robbed of a draw!! Kidding!

 

I voted no.... not because I thought DLH won (I cant make up my mind who won) but because it was far too close to use the most over-used word in boxing... robbery.

Whitaker was more accurate but simply didnt have enough offence throughout, especially in the last few rds.
DLH missed too many punches & relied on flurries & 1 punch power shots but did press forward.

It was very difficult to score & neither man did enough to win IMO.

A draw would be the fairest result.

 

It could have gone either way as I saw it, so I don't think it was a robbery. However, the judge's scores were a bit suspect, far too wide for such a tight match.

 

No. I had it even. It was way too close a fight and difficult to score to call it a "robbery".

 

Compu Box numbers had Oscar landing only -23 punches the entire fight.

 

I wouldn't call it a robbery, but I had Pernell winning this fight by an absolute minimum of three points. I've said it once before and I'll say it again. Pernell beat Oscar more decisively than Floyd Mayweather did.

The difference between the two fights is the simple fact that the judges this time paid attention to the punches Floyd landed rather than paying attention to the crowd reaction for everything Delahoya did. Whitaker blocked the same shots that Mayweather blocked against Delahoya, yet Whitaker made him miss a lot more. Even though Pernell didn't capitalize as much as Mayweather did on Oscar's miscues, it should not have influenced the scoring.

Effective aggression does count in a boxing contest and Oscar's aggresion that night was not effective. Quartey also proved that against Delahoya and was robbed by the judges.

 

Let me start off by saying that I have'nt watched this fight for some time but two elements in this fight made it very difficult to score first was the WBC stating that if a headbutt occurred the fighters who was not cut by it gets a point deducted and the fact that Sweet Pea came out of nowhere and kncoked Oscar down.

 

You got that one exactly right! Oscar did the exact same thing against Quartey too. Both fighters were more than deserving of rematches against Delahoya but the Golden Boy chickened out. It still baffles me how he beat Julio Cesar Chavez fairly convincingly in their first fight, yet he demands a rematch with Chavez because he wasn't satisfied with his initial victory? I often question Delahoya's integrity as a champion because those two decisions are marred with controversy.
Don't even talk about the Felix Sturm fight because that one IMO is a serious Delahoya black mark on the sport.

 

I felt it was close enough to go either way.

 

Not robbed but I had it 114-112 Whitaker