You've seen the entire fight, and so have I.My eyes tell me it was a close fight and not the schooling that the Sports Illustrated cover has stereotyped the fight as being.
ROBBED. I'd like to correct JT's mildness, and I'm sure he'll not mind me doing so as well. Whitaker-Chavez doesn't just go down as one of the worst decisions of the 90's, it was one of the worst decisions in the history of professional prize fighting. Not just in my opinion, but with the vast majority of journalists, fans, fighters and trainers, etc.
If you're indeed unbiased as you say.I invite you to revisit the Chavez-Whitaker fight, but this time as you view, dont have a stereotypical thought process as you score that Whitaker is the defensive wizard in there.If you actually pay attention to the goings on in the fight, you will actually see that except for two rounds in that fight, JC Chavez defense was just as superb as Whitaker's.......yet it goes unoticed by most because the stereotype is that Whitaker is the one that should win the fight based on defense.If you're leaning heavily on defense when it comes to scoring a round to Whitaker, the same must be observed and scored upon for Chavez.Chavez defense was superb, except for two rounds Whitaker's offense was plum ineffective.....but it goes unoticed because the thinking is that it should be Whitaker and not Chavez who should be credited for defense.Rewatch and see!
We now live in the internet age, and many publications are about. Many have reviewed the fight since that time, or have made reference to it. And from what i've seen, still not one thinks a draw was fair. I haven't seen any publication say 'you know what, the fight was actually a draw' to say nothing of Chavez winning. Before the fight over half the media were picking Chavez to win. None of them resorted to having Chavez the winner to save their own asses. They all admitted Pea won. Mind you a few did start pulling the Chavez got old overnight routine, for they had to soften the blow to their egos somehow :good
Whitaker-Chavez is a disgraceful decision one of the worst but i think Jones robbery in seoul was alot worse.
Phuey Scientist, when publications revisit a fight with a column about it, it does'nt necessarily mean that they have rewatched it. I would venture to guess that if a journalist is writing about it 10 or so years later, he doing so out of memory. ......and the memory goes back to the Showtime commentators calling it a robbery after they had it virtually even after 10 rounds complete, and even more so, the memory of the Sports Illustrated cover which read robbed. You know that that cover is etched in the memories of even the non-boxing fans!
No, not necessarily, but often it does mean that. It depends with what depth they write the piece with. If they merely make a small reference to the fight, usually they are going off memory. If they go in depth, the likelihood is that they have rewatched it. If they are journalists worth their salt, I doubt they'd take much notice of what Showtime commentators or Sports Illustrated think about the fight and would rather judge it for thesmelves. Journos can think for themselves sometimes. E.g., look at the DLH-Mosley rematch. Most journos had it for Mosley, despite the HBO crew claiming robbery most foul.
