Whitaker beat DelaHoya worse than Mayweather

I dont see how anyone though WHittaker won that fight, imo no controversy I had ODLH winning by at least 3 points.

I had May beating ODLH by 2 points.

 

I had it 7-4-1, plus the KD 116-112. He made him look amateurish at times.

 

Here's a treat for you, Popkins.

This content is protected

 

For what it's worth, even though Hopkins gets an extra point difference for the KD, I gave Calzaghe two extra points for dry humping Hopkins during the Shakespearean LB performance. "ALAS! I have been hit on the "crouch" and my cupeth has been displaced on my privates! Woe! I die, Horatio!...Hey, are you dry humpething me, Bitchslappy?"


Anyway, two points extra.

 

Ghastly!! Thanks though

 

I can't see how anyone could think Whitaker beat De la Hoya worse than Mayweather did. People keep talking about how De la Hoya wasn't landing much on Whitaker, but Whitaker wasn't landing either. Mayweather won clearly by landing clean effective blows, Whitaker didn't. I'm not saying that Whitaker necessarily lost the fight, but Whitaker not getting the decision is definitely not anything close to a robbery, whereas If Mayweather didn't get the decision it would have been a clear robbery.

 

I had it to Hopkins too and Calzaghe looked very amateurish, but that display of spoiling and amateurish missing deserved no winner if we're honest, and there was no one getting whooped.

I called this 1 an SD with volume versus quality before the fight :hey

I feel Cazlaghe gets either too little or too much praise. He fought mainly C-B Class opponents (or worse), but he was past prime himself by the time he goto Lacy/Kessler/Hopkins/Jones. He certainly looks better as a younger man

 

Pop,out of curiousity,what's your take on John Conteh?