Whitaker Apologists Respond...

Take away the robberies off of Whitakers record and the only person to actually beat him was Trinidad.

 

Well, I'd have responded in more detail if not for your last paragraph, when you clearly show your bias and lack of knowledge of the man's style and skills. Therefore, how am I supposed to take your opinions regarding the Vasquez fight(which only you seem to find was a robbery) seriously? The Pestriaev fight was ruled a NC anyway, at the end of Pea's career, because he was literally high during the fight!

The Rivera fight is the only one were a legitimate case can be made, though I'd need to re-watch it, as it isn't one of my favorites to watch obviously. And again, your opinion regarding the DLH fight shows your bias even clearer. I figured in other posts you just had strong feelings about the Vasquez fight, but it's clear now that you have it out for Whitaker in general.

 

Wow you sound bitter? I am in the minority (time after time) an believe that a draw was the right verdict in JCC vs Whitaker...and second that I had DLH ahead as well. But he was great and has legitamate support on his side. Whitaker did more than 10 seconds of brilliance...perhaps you should watch him again..

 

:-( I'm not going to bother with this nonsense

 

Here are some apologetics:

Boxing 98 on Pea-Pestriaev:
William Detloff writes:

"While it's true that at age 33 Whitaker isn't the untouchable genius he was three or four years ago, he remains the game's top defensive fighter. Pressing the action, Whitaker, 41-2-1(17), swarms over the first three rounds, as Pestriaev, 20-2(15), does little in return. The Russian born fighter gets untracked a little bit in the fourth, and for the balance of the bout catches "Sweet Pea" with an occasional right hand or left hook. But for the most part it's typical Whitaker action as he clubs Pestriaev with overhand lefts and right hooks, then slips away untouched, or ties the taller man up inside. Pestriaev is awarded a questionable knockdown in the 11th by referee Jim Santa after Whitaker leans his body outside the ropes and gets unexpectedly whacked upon returning. The decision is unanimous for Whitaker by surprisingly close scores of 114-113 (twice) and 115-112."


More apologetics to come :good

 

DLH fight was certainly no robbery, it was a tight fight that was difficult to score and could have gone either way in my opinion, not a robbery

 

Ah, Whitaker apologists, that infamous group... Right up there with the "Herbie Hide has an iron chin!" and "Zuri Lawrence is the next Mike Tyson" groups...

Also, any fan who responded to a criticism of Whitaker would be an apologist. One might as well just say "Whitaker fans, respond to this!" but that would involve communicating through an orifice other than the anus.

Whitaker beat Vasquez, although it was indeed a close affair.

Whitaker beat Rivera, although it could have gone either way.

Holding the Pestriaev fight against Whitaker is ridiculous.

Some Whitaker fans may exaggerate the extent to which he won the DLH and Chavez fights, but the fact is he won them perfectly clearly. None of Whitaker's favourable decisions in his prime can be reasonably compared with those outrages.

 

The man was past his prime and on cocaine when all of these so called ''roberies'' occured. The Andrie Pastreive fight was just before the Trinidad fight and it was clear that he was completely shot by that point, plus he won the fight despite all of this. Whitaker won the gold in the olympics in 84 and the Rivera fight was in 96, thats all that needs to be said. He was clearly past his prime when these fights happened. I would have understood it if you had said that a peak Whitaker recieved gift decisions, but to say that close fights that went his way when he was past his prime is bordiline ignorant.



[yt]PD5rx0OdyDA[/yt]

 

Rivera 1 was a very close scrape for Whitaker. He looked extremely ordinary and lacked his usual finesse. It was a fight where he had to grind it out. I firmly believe that he wasn't motivated and was suffering the effects of the flu, as reported after the fight. I've never seen him look so bad. I tend to agree the fight was more than likely a Rivera win, but it was close.

The Chavez fight wasn't close. Whitaker clearly outlanded Chavez with jabs and heavy artillery. Two or three of the early rounds were close, but even scoring them for him he still loses the fight by 2-3 points. 8 rounds to 4 or 7-4-1, or even 9-3. Chavez never won 6 rounds. It was alarming when Whitaker opened up with left hand bombs during the late stages and punished Chavez to the body. The Mexican hero was a loser. He lacked ideas.

The Vazquez fight was a fix? Whitaker won the fight as clear as a bright blue sky. IMO it's probably one of the best and most convincing performances of his career. He was naturally out-weighed and beat one of the best jr middleweights of the 90's.

Never seen the Pestriaev fight.

 

...........I hated Whitaker. Absolutely hated that little ****er. I cannot be a fan of anyone referring to himself in the third person. That's a deal-breaker, sorry.


Time is a funny dog, though, and it does mellow attitudes. Perhaps it's the distance; were he fighting today, I'd hate him all over again. But he doesn't, so I don't feel as offended by his presence. Yes, I am just that fickle.

The distance time has afforded me allows for a more clear line of sight in watching his fights now. I mean, even then I acknowledged that he was great, but I wouldn't allow myself to sit in wonder at his skills the way I can now. I just couldn't do it; it would be like drinking ipicac.


I sometimes think then that others, maybe even judges, looked for any excuse they could to take what they could when they could from him. If he dominated a round in less spectacular fashion than a few before it, give it to the other guy, that kind of thing.

 

Whitaker was one of the best ever, no question.

 

You dictate the pace, control the tempo, have your opponent fight your fight, the only thing that he is hitting is air and crowd responds as if the shots landed but it didn't, then you wouldn't be mad? It was a robbery. Oscar did what Whitaker wanted him to.

 

...........Nah; it wasn't like that. It was a close fight.

 

You just said that you hated Whitaker your opinion on this means pretty much nothing. no offense.