Which "Draw" Is The Most Wrong.

Pea-Chavez IMO

 

Well, when you bring unfair standards into it, why stop there?

Whitaker SHOULD have known that with Don King and 50 thousand screaming Chavez fanatics in the mix, he had to fight more aggressively to get the win.

Fenech SHOULD have known that Don King was in Nelson's corner, and so pummelling him in the corner for 9 rounds wouldn't be enough - he needed a knockout to win.

I'd rather stick to what is fair - and applying the rules fairly, Lennox got shafted, big time.

 

I agree. Whitaker could of done more to dominate him IMO, Chavez was slow as **** and seemingly ran out of steam after round 6. I usually have it 8 - 4 or 7 - 5 to Whitaker but I confess I cant see a draw.

 

All those draws were equally wrong.

But they dont rank with the worst decisions I've seen. Better to be robbed with a draw than given a loss.

 

:admin

You need to watch that **** man, a masterclass from Sweet Pea. That would be my pick anyway. I only had Chavez winning two rounds.

 

Personally I felt the worst one was Fenech-Nelson I which I scored 117-111 (I can justify 116-112..but 115-113 or worse I find hard to explain). I am a big Nelson fan and remember getting ready to watch him take apart this Fenech who I admitedly knew very little about at the time. from the beggining Fenech took it to him and his relentless pressure left nelson little fighting room outside of having his back glued to the ropes. Now in nelsons defense he did display some good fighting from that position and got the better of some exchanges. Fenech won me over this night, and clearly (IMHO) deserved this decision.

2nd I would go with Lewis Holyfield which I believe I had at 116-112, and again don't see how this happend.

I am in the major minority on the 3rd fight. I scored Chavez-Whitaker as a draw and felt that was the fair decision. I could probably edge 115-113 for Whitaker before Chavez, but still feel that the draw was the right card. I have watched the fight several times and the wide cards I see for whitaker are IMHO still shocking. I don't know if the unabashed bias commentary for Whitaker by the announcers has swayed so many or if they are seeing something that I don't (I am sure there will be smart answers for that one! LOL)

 

Yeah that must be it!

 

Lewis v Holyfield 1. Ironically,if their rematch had been declared a draw,I'd have had no complaint because Holyfield did a lot better,and it was a very close one. In the first fight,Lewis got shafted,pure and simple.

 

This content is protected

This woman is dangerous for boxing.

Shoot on sight.

 

Sweet Pea certainly got ripped off in that one Essexboy.

 

Don't really know I have them equal. Hearns-Leonard 2 was pretty bad too. So was Funeka-Guzman. Makes me cringe at the corruption in this great sport:-(

 

Lewis was in his prime in both losses. As far as Lewis never being stopped late, well there is a first time for everything, Lewis wouldnt handle the heat Holy would put on him after hurting him late, Lewis was never in with anyone like a prime Holy. Closest thing was a past it Holy and even that one gave him all he wanted in the 2nd fight.

 

1. "Lewis-Holy 1" is the BIGGEST scammed robbery mainly cuz the HEAVYWEIGHT title was on the line.

2. "Chavez-Whitaker" was a rip-off if you have and own an open mind. However, if you are Mexican or a Chavez fanatic, you'll probably find a way for Chavez to win that fight of 1993.

3. "Nelson-Fenech 1" was a robbery as well, but it was part of an undercard and NOT a whole lotta money was riding on that fight.. Still, a robbery is a robbery...

MR.BILLhat

 

Yes he should of, having experienced the first Ramirez fight. But he probably figured the money was good and any out cry from controversy would go in his favour, and he was right.

Nelson was cute in the ring, and out (having DKP in the corner), he got what he deserved in that fight, IMO.

 

You are a shameful apologist for blatant corruption, booze.