Whitaker Robberies - What Was The Point?

This is what I know, may be wrong.

Ramirez was a Mexican who held the WBC belt. As we all know the WBC is based in Mexico and has a bit of a bias towards Mexicans. Chavez was the WBA lightweight champ at the time.

The WBC/powers that be wanted a massive Mexican unification fight between Chavez and Ramirez and therefore Sweet Pea got shafted.

 

Was Ramirez a King fighter?

 

He was black.

 

So?

 

The judges were obviously racist.

 

Ramirez was a Mexican and Whitaker was fighting for the WBC welterweight title. The WBC are based in Mexico and the president, Sulamain, is from the country.

 

He was considered boring, and not very marketable.
(As some of his fellow teammates)

106: Paul Gonzales, Los Angeles, Calif. (1st)
112: Steve McCrory, Detroit, Mich. (1st)
119: Robert Shannon, Edmonds, Wash.
125: Meldrick Taylor, Philadelphia, Pa. (1st)
132: Pernell Whitaker, Norfolk, Va. (1st)
139: Jerry Page, Columbus, Ohio (1st)
147: Mark Breland, Brooklyn, N.Y. (1st)
156: Frank Tate, Detroit, Mich. (1st)
165: Virgil Hill, Williston, N.D. (2nd)
178: Evander Holyfield, Atlanta, Ga. (3rd)
201: Henry Tillman, Los Angeles, Calif. (1st)
+201: Tyrell Biggs, Philadelphia, Pa. (1st)

 

I'm just curious, was their reports about this. I haven't heard this before.

 

Depends where the judges were from. Many French people are afro Americans and they don't have a problem with racism. However, Russia, Coatia, and even Spain all have bad reputations for it within football.

 

Racist is an over used term. Biased maybe, but not racist.

 

Whitaker was robbed against Ramirez but in watching it years later it was not as terrible as I thought at the time ... still, he should have gotten the decision.

He was robbed again against Chavez in a terrible draw but Chavez was protected by DK for a long time ...

 

Thanks for the heads up

 

Yeah, sure just blame everything on race instead of looking for the real reason.