Was there outcry when Pernell Whitaker got a gift against Wilfred Rivera....

whitaker chavez is a fight of a completely different magnitude honestly

 

Funny. I remember quite a controversy when Sergio Martinez was on the wrong end of the decision vs Paul Williams. It wasn't a robbery, but I do recall many prominent boxing people saying Martinez deserved the win. And when I think about it, there was a bit of an outcry when De La Hoya was robbed good and proper in the second Mosley fight. I think your persecution complex is unfounded.

 

I thought that Pea won, close but clear.

 

Pea lost, no doubt, not to me or the other half dozen boxing heads who watched that fight live.

I had Pea winning by two points over Chavez, not a hugely drastic differential. Against Ramirez... ehh, that was suspicious. Whitaker's only fault was taking more value of style and showmanship and the expression of his inner demons over actual effectiveness. And that is a small critique on the masterpiece that was his career. But it showed in some crucial fights.

 

Whittaker should have lost the first Rivera fight. I also thought he should have lost the first McGirt fight. Anyone who thinks Martinez was robbed vs. Williams is ******ed. If you wanna say the fight was close or could have gone either way fine but dont whine about it being a robbery.

 

I don't know about any prejudices or biases in the media, but i was disgusted when Ring Magazine paraded Mosley all over the front of their issue after the De La Hoya rematch as if that win was legit. That was a joke of a decision imo (although i only watched it once, it was enough). The media never even questioned it from what i remember. I thought Williams beat Martinez so i didn't see the fuss. Not enough was made of Marquez drawing with Pacquiao, i though Marquez won that clearly.

I think the bias is against Germans, because Felix Sturm was robbed against Oscar and nobody thinks otherwise, that was well and truly brushed under the table

 

I had Whitaker beating Chavez by 8 points, he never embarassed him in terms of the nature of the fight, but he did on my card.

 

I had Pea beating Chavez by 6 or 8 points (my card was either 118-110 or 117-111, I can't remember which).

I had Oscar beating Mosley in the rematch by 5 points.

I'd say both qualify as robberies.

 

I had Rivera up by two (115-113) in the first fight, but I recall that there were was a round or two that could have been judged the other way. So bad decision, possibly, but certainly not a robbery.

Pea-Chavez and Pea-Ramirez were both robberies, although the Ramirez fight was the more egregious of the two.

I actually fought Mosely-DLH was a draw. Neither fighter set the world on fire that night. Mosely banked a couple of the early rounds by landing harder, more effective shots and DLH pretty much tanked the last three or four rounds. You can make cases for either fighting winning by a score of 115-113, but when you watch the fight *with the sound down * it becomes a hell of a lot more difficult to score.

 

In my opinion:

Robberies: Whitaker-Chavez, Whitaker-Ramirez

Bad Decisions: DLH-Tito, DLH-Mosley

Controversial: Whitaker-Rivera I, DLH-Quartey, Pac-Marquez II

 

How about DLH-Whitaker? Alot of people call that a robberie.

 

Not a robbery, not even a bad decision, just controversial I'd say. Could have gone either way depending on what you prefer.

 

@ Whitaker beating Chavez by only 2 points. :rofl @ McGirt beating Whitaker.