Whitaker vs Ramirez I

I could give only 4 rounds to Ramirez... even then I thought I was being generous

 

Well yes he did, look at the records...

We can all be horrified/outraged/disgusted; but Ramirez did truly win. That is a fact; and ultimately the most important fact.

 

So you just go by records and do look at context when judging fights? Sorry but I go a little deeper than the actual verdict. Especially in a sport that's been ripe with bribery and politics

 

I scored the first fight two judges' cards to one judge's card in favor of Ramirez.

 

Yes for 99.9999999999% of fights, not least because I have not seen them!

And you, like everyone else here has to do the same.

 

The 2nd fight was closer, but Whitaker did not win either.

 

Huh? Are you saying the official record of who won and lost is all you go by and there are no incorrect verdicts?

 

No, I am saying as an individual you can only watch so many fights. So you more often than not rely on either the opinion of someone else or you have the 'official result' in front of you.

Thus, although maybe an uncomfortable paradox, you bias the rating of a fighter by going on anything but the 'official result'; as the 'official result' is the only constant.

 

It was a robbery. I watched it live back then, and have seen it on youtube.

Whitaker won at least 7 rounds, probably 8. The fight was in Italy, which was Ramirez's home base at the time. The fight was a precursor to an anticipated unification fight between Ramirez and Chavez. Don King was involved. Need I say more?

I don't get what TBooze is trying to say. Booze, watch the fight on you tube. Also, you can only rate a fighter based on "official results?" I don't agree. Doing that ignores the instances where corrupt politics are involved in the outcome. The fact that scoring a fight is subjective and often influenced by politics ENHANCES the need to look at fights in context and on a case by case basis in evaluating fighters, especially ones who were from the countries where the WBA and WBC were located.

 

I suggest you can only rate all fighters on official results, as that is the only constant.

We do not have at hand every instance of corruption in boxing, indeed I would say we only know as a collective a scientifically insignificant amount. So just because we do know of that small amount, that should not bias a rating as that is unfair against those who may have been the victim of corruption but we are unaware of.

As for Ramirez/WhitakerI I have made my opinion known further up the thread: