Prenell Whitaker-Meldrick Taylor if they fought.

[ripcity]

If they fought what would have happened? Taylor with his amazing hand speed vs Whitaker with his most impresive deffvencive skills.

[mr. magoo]

Who in the hell is PREnell Whitaker?

Did he come before Pernell Whitaker, hence the prefix " Pre " ?

[TBooze]

I think Whitaker is on record as saying he could not beat Meldrick....

Taylor on points all the way though to ChavezI, then Pernell on points post 17/3/1990.

[brooklyn1550]

Whitaker UD

[rr94]

If they fought what would have happened? Taylor with his amazing hand speed vs Whitaker with his most impresive deffvencive skills.

defensive is how u spell defensive.

[rr94]

If they fought what would have happened? Taylor with his amazing hand speed vs Whitaker with his most impresive deffvencive skills.

whitaker UD

[mr. magoo]

Enough talk about PREnell Whitaker. I want to here about POSTnell Whitaker.

[rr94]

Enough talk about PREnell Whitaker. I want to here about POSTnell Whitaker.

:rofl :rofl :rofl

[red cobra]

Taylor with the faster hands maybe, but second to Whitaker in every other department, most of all defense. Taylor makes Whitaker use all of his wily skills due to the speed and volume of his offense, but Pernell would make himpay dearly with counter, and Taylor was not as rugged as Chavez, for instance when it comes to taking it. A strange thing, but Pernels shots would be the heavier, and at the end Taylor would look like he took too many shots.

[sweet_scientist]

I think Whitaker is on record as saying he could not beat Meldrick....
Taylor on points all the way though to ChavezI, then Pernell on points post 17/3/1990.

Source?

I'll give you a source (in an online chat with Whitaker) which suggests the opposite:

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

One more question: Did you ever spar with Meldrick Taylor and Mark Breland? If you did, who got the best of those sessions?

Pernell_Whitaker:[COLOR=#3366ff]I worked with Meldrick once. Pretty easy stuff he was a spectacular fighter but the things he did wouldnt work with me

[TBooze]

Source?

I'll give you a source (in an online chat with Whitaker) which suggests the opposite:

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

One more question: Did you ever spar with Meldrick Taylor and Mark Breland? If you did, who got the best of those sessions?

Pernell_Whitaker:[COLOR=#3366ff]I worked with Meldrick once. Pretty easy stuff he was a spectacular fighter but the things he did wouldnt work with me

That is why I put 'I think' I do not know sure he was quoted as saying it, and on top of that I suspect if I did read it, it would be in an old mag....

But remember Whitaker was very much third of three for Duva; Taylor and Breland were the stars, Pernell very much an after thought pre 1989.

[Zakman]

A lot of people will disagree, but prime for prime, I say Taylor. His speed and workrate were just phenomenal, and I think he would win a close decision in a very competitive fight.

[sweet_scientist]

What do people picking Taylor think about his performance against Howard Davis?

[TBooze]

Yeah but that was because with them were more money to make at the time.

Yes, and that what boxing is about at that level, Whitaker was very much third of three as far as that goes. Indeed Biggs and Holyfield were more important to Duva (Biggs obviously pre 1988.)

[Titan1]

Pernell would win by UD, but Meldrick would make him work for it.

[sweet_scientist]

That is why I put 'I think' I do not know sure he was quoted as saying it, and on top of that I suspect if I did read it, it would be in an old mag....

But remember Whitaker was very much third of three for Duva; Taylor and Breland were the stars, Pernell very much an after thought pre 1989.

Breland and Taylor were definitely more highly regarded, but I wouldn't say Whitaker was an afterthought. Pernell was somewhat inconsistent, (hardly even made the Olympic team) but when he got there he basically stole the show, pretty much being regarded the standout fighter of the Olympics.

Taylor was highly regarded because he was so young and it was thought that he could continue to develop and become much better when he reached full maturity, and Breland was a magnificent amatuer who was expected to kick on in the transition to the pro's. But Whitaker, even back in the day, had that touch of class than no one else in the Duva stable had. Holyfield had said back in the day that he thought Whitaker will be the most succesful of the 84 Olympians because of his great technique. Pernell had his props but he was more of an X factor.

[achillesthegreat]

A VERY hard match but I think Whitaker had the superior defence and would time Taylor.

Maybe a bit like Floyd v Zab but on a higher level and without Pernell being as offensive as Floyd.

[Executioner]

Whitaker takes this one by UD imo.

[Shake]

I'd be willing to put money on Whitaker. As fast as Meldrick was, he was there to be hit.

[JohnThomas1]

But remember Whitaker was very much third of three for Duva; Taylor and Breland were the stars, Pernell very much an after thought pre 1989.

I'm not quite sure it was like that, Whitaker too won at the 1984 games and was definitely considered a tomorrow's champion. Whitaker schooled Ramirez and got robbed off the title before Taylor had his shot. Even then Whitaker was only 5 months behind Taylor in setting things straight and nabbing a crown. Breland was already dethroned and damaged goods by the end of 1987. I remember Whitaker got stacks of press from a very early stage. He beat Mayweather in just his 12th pro fight in 87, everybody knew he was special way early.

[TBooze]

I'm not quite sure it was like that, Whitaker too won at the 1984 games and was definitely considered a tomorrow's champion. Whitaker schooled Ramirez and got robbed off the title before Taylor had his shot. Even then Whitaker was only 5 months behind Taylor in setting things straight and nabbing a crown. Breland was already dethroned and damaged goods by the end of 1987. I remember Whitaker got stacks of press from a very early stage. He beat Mayweather in just his 12th pro fight in 87, everybody knew he was special way early.

Not quite as I remember it. I always thought of Whitaker as the ugly duckling who was around the superstars (Taylor, Breland, Holyfield and Biggs). As story developed, Whitaker worked his way to second only to Holyfield and probably by doing that, saved Duva's promotion by making up for losses of Breland and Biggs as well as Taylor going bust before his time.

[achillesthegreat]

Pernell was more offensive than Floyd.
Throwing more punches doesn't mean you are more offensive. Floyd was using his strength and power more than Pernell probably has in his entire career.

[Minotauro]

I gonna go with Taylor UD his punch output and speed would enable him to land a lot more on Whitaker then anyone else.

[mr. magoo]

I gonna go with Taylor UD his punch output and speed would enable him to land a lot more on Whitaker then anyone else.

Probably a fair call, although none of this stuff will ever be written in stone.

I think a lot of people are basing their preference for Whitaker on the fact that Taylor declined dramatically after the Chavez and Norris defeats, while Whitaker continued to climb to new heights. Taylor was actually a very fast, talented, and well conditioned fighter, who for a brief period, was every bit as good as even the best pound for pound fighters. His bouts with Buddy Mcgirt, Courtney Hooper, Julio Chavez, Aaron Davis, and Glenwood Brown were some of the best Welterweight works I had seen in a lot of years. What's more, he was a natural to the 140 something pound ranks, whreas Whitaker was more indiginous to lightweight.

I'm probably a minority here, but I'd pick a 1989 Taylor to decision Whitaker at just about any phase of his career.

[jackiebrown]

What do people picking Taylor think about his performance against Howard Davis?ji do belive it was aaron davis my friend

[mightyd40]

i think it could go either way and would love to see it but would probably go with taylor by close decision on this one........pernells defense was great but taylors speed was fast enough so peas reaction time would be offset a bit. both would be hit but taylors workrate gets him a tough fought decision in my book

[mr. magoo]

Perhaps you guys missed the post earlier when they talked about how they had sparred and Pernell had easily bested him, and how Meldrick's style didn't work with him.

Whitaker is a lot better than being able to be bested by fast work-rate hands.

Sparring matches don't always tell the whole story. Tyson was floored in sparring by Greg Page, so what does that tell ya?

Besides, the press tends to blow these sparring tales out of proportion.

[mightyd40]

Whitaker himself said it. And once again, Meldrick had fast hands and a good workrate, which works against those of lesser defensive ability or ones unable to be effective at a distance, which is why I firmly believe Whitaker did best him when they sparred ,and would in a real match.
pernells defense was highly based on his reaction times and although i am far from certain dont u think its possible thats taylors fast hands would offset this and allow him to land on pea more frequently than others??

[mightyd40]

Sure, if Whitaker fought in close, but Whitaker's southpaw jab and his efficiency with it would allow him to outbox Taylor from the outside. Taylor wasn't known for his defense at all, and would take shots to give them out twice as much, but again, that normally worked against fighters and guys who were willing to fight inside. Whitaker could do it all, but as he himself said, Taylor's stuff just didn't work on him, because he knew what do to against it. Stay on the outside and work the jab and land consistently, don't allow Taylor to get in close and unload.

I'm sure Whitaker would land consistently with the jab, land the more meaningful shots, and from a distance be able to time Meldrick's punches better than most, although Pea would have to take some shots and flurries along the way.
not disagreeing bc i can see this being the case as well but i like to look at all angles of a fight....good points though

[achillesthegreat]

Whitakers defence was not based on reflexes. It was a good defence. He could move his feet, head or arms to evade shots.

Whitaker has made opponents faster than himself continously miss i.e. DLH.

Whitaker would have no issue fighting on the inside.

[jackiebrown]

Then you're mistaken.he took them both on actually ... my fault

[mightyd40]

Whitakers defence was not based on reflexes. It was a good defence. He could move his feet, head or arms to evade shots.

Whitaker has made opponents faster than himself continously miss i.e. DLH.

Whitaker would have no issue fighting on the inside.
the way he bent everything from his head to his entire upperbody was based on his opponents throwing punches and him reacting to them.....he didnt just do them to look cool its reflexes and reaction times.

[JohnThomas1]

Sparring matches don't always tell the whole story. Tyson was floored in sparring by Greg Page, so what does that tell ya?


It tells us Tyson was a very very lucky man not to have to take on Super Greg Page in a real tiff

:smoke

[Mantequilla]

Taylor's a bit too basic and easy to hit to win this.

Not sure if he would have beaten a 100 percent McGirt to be honest.

[ripcity]

I think that Whitaker would have won. He would have to work for the win. I think his deffence was better than Taylor's offenve.

[mr. magoo]

It tells us Tyson was a very very lucky man not to have to take on Super Greg Page in a real tiff

:smoke

I don't know what you do for a living John, but if you're thinking about going into comedy, then better hold on to that day job for a while.:good

[TBooze]

It tells us Tyson was a very very lucky man not to have to take on Super Greg Page in a real tiff

:smoke

Super Greg busted Tyson up as well...:yep

[divac]

Pernell most probably loses a controversial decision to just about every offensively elite fighter in history.

The man just would'nt dare to try to consistently be effective offensively to win round after round.

Each fighter looks subpar offensively vs Pernell, but at the end of the day the judges are'nt impressed to give rounds to a fighter who's goal is to win a fight strictly fighting defensively.


My card would probably read 8-4 for Meldrick Taylor, while those who's goal as boxing observers is to be called a purist, most likely has it 8-4 Pernell Whitaker.

Would have been mighty interesting to have seen Whitaker fight an elite type fighter who's winning assets were speed and quickness.
The two fights that could have come about for Whitaker were Taylor and Camacho.......but for whatever reasons, and most probably not Whitaker's fault, those fights never came about.

[MagnificentMatt]

Enough talk about PREnell Whitaker. I want to here about POSTnell Whitaker.

Bad attempt at a joke..:nut

But Meldrick did have amazing speed...But Pernell probably wasnt horribley too far behind him.

[Holmes' Jab]

Whitaker, by tight UD. Taylor would his moments in a very close'un. Good matchup. :good

[achillesthegreat]

the way he bent everything from his head to his entire upperbody was based on his opponents throwing punches and him reacting to them.....he didnt just do them to look cool its reflexes and reaction times.
Every fighter reacts to punches. The slower fighters have to try and predict their opponenets movements. Sure Whitaker had better reflexes than others BUT his defensive methods were solid skill - he could move his feet, head or arms to evade and block shots.

Basically if you got Peas defence and put it on another fighter, it is still a very good defence.

Sure Pea showboated and sometimes exaggerated his moves but like Mayweather he simply had a good defence, it wasn't based on reflexes.

[Robbi]

Pernell most probably loses a controversial decision to just about every offensively elite fighter in history.

The man just would'nt dare to try to consistently be effective offensively to win round after round.

Each fighter looks subpar offensively vs Pernell, but at the end of the day the judges are'nt impressed to give rounds to a fighter who's goal is to win a fight strictly fighting defensively.


My card would probably read 8-4 for Meldrick Taylor, while those who's goal as boxing observers is to be called a purist, most likely has it 8-4 Pernell Whitaker.

Would have been mighty interesting to have seen Whitaker fight an elite type fighter who's winning assets were speed and quickness.
The two fights that could have come about for Whitaker were Taylor and Camacho.......but for whatever reasons, and most probably not Whitaker's fault, those fights never came about.


Divac. I just love your posts. Comical reading at its very best. I don't take you serious at all, and have a chuckle at your posts. Never be a judge, because if a slick defensive boxer is in with a come forward aggressor, you'd be as well handing in your scorecard before the fight even started.

[sweet_scientist]

Pernell most probably loses a controversial decision to just about every offensively elite fighter in history.
Maybe. But here's a couple that aren't on that list: Azumah Nelson and Julio Cesar Chavez :good

[JohnThomas1]

Super Greg busted Tyson up as well...:yep

Just imagine what he would have done to Holmes

:lol:

[JohnThomas1]

I don't know what you do for a living John, but if you're thinking about going into comedy, then better hold on to that day job for a while.:good

Well my real name is Rodney Rude tho you might not have heard of me over there

:smoke

[sweet_scientist]

Well my real name is Rodney Rude tho you might not have heard of me over there

:smoke

:lol:

[JohnThomas1]

:lol:

;)

[Holmes' Jab]

Just imagine what he would have done to Holmes

:lol:

Steady on, boy. ;)


Holmes wins a close UD on their respective best nights. The 'Mallard' myth (said as if Larry ducked every fighter in the galaxy) is getting slightly out of hand, surely it's up to the match makers (King etc) from time to time to have made these fights.

[JohnThomas1]

Steady on, boy. ;)


Holmes wins a close UD on their respective best nights. The 'Mallard' myth (said as if Larry ducked every fighter in the galaxy) is getting slightly out of hand, surely it's up to the match makers (King etc) from time to time to have made these fights.

I think anyone can tell this is jest as well as the Tyson comment, i mean come on lol

[Holmes' Jab]

I wasn't having a dig at you in particular JT1, I know you're a dead on guy an' all that and one of the most respected posters 'round these parts. The widespread Mallard thing is exagerated. It's just a pity that fight was never made along with a few possible rematches, then Holmes legacy would get far less flack. I guess we'll never know. :-(

Now I wasn't around at the time but surely it wasn't always on his part that he didn't face certain fighters. Same applies for Dempsey, Jeffries, Johnson etc.

[achillesthegreat]

Maybe. But here's a couple that aren't on that list: Azumah Nelson and Julio Cesar Chavez :good
...and thats how the story was told!

[divac]

Divac. I just love your posts. Comical reading at its very best. I don't take you serious at all, and have a chuckle at your posts. Never be a judge, because if a slick defensive boxer is in with a come forward aggressor, you'd be as well handing in your scorecard before the fight even started.

I'm glad you enjoy my posts Robbi!:D

......but I think if you follow along other threads you'll find that your theory that I reward only come foward fighters is'nt correct.
Two fights that come to mind .....I had Floyd Mayweather beating JL Castillo in both fights......and I recently had Winky Wright (who was more the aggressor) losing quite handily to Bernard Hopkins!

Pernell Whitaker could get just as dirty and nasty as Bernard Hopkins did vs Winky Wright, but he just did'nt do it consistently from round to round vs his best opposition.

It all comes down to effectiveness. While alot of the Whitaker backers point to DLH and Chavez not being effective, they completely blind themselves of the fact that Pernell was equally or even more ineffective when you judge these fights on a round by round basis!

Sometimes the truth hurts the purist wanabee's!:yep :deal

[Street Lethal]

What messed Taylor up was Chavez's heavy hands. Whitaker had a decent punch, but I doubt he would hurt Taylor. Taylor had a good chin. This could be the difference. On the other hand, Whitaker had a tendency to rise to the occasion.

[divac]

What messed Taylor up was Chavez's heavy hands. Whitaker had a decent punch, but I doubt he would hurt Taylor. Taylor had a good chin. This could be the difference. On the other hand, Whitaker had a tendency to rise to the occasion.

How so?

You dont have to rise to the occasion when your opposition is'nt at your level.

I guess you can say he rose to the occasion and drew with the great Chavez......
.....but in his biggest fights, the best you can say is that he drew with Chavez.

My point is that Pernell Whitaker is'nt a fighter to point to as a posterboy fighter that rises to the occasion.

In reality, he only had that one big fight with Chavez that got him a draw, his other occasion fights were when he was visibly past his best.....namely DLH and Trinidad!

[sweet_scientist]

How so?

You dont have to rise to the occasion when your opposition is'nt at your level.

I guess you can say he rose to the occasion and drew with the great Chavez......
.....but in his biggest fights, the best you can say is that he drew with Chavez.

My point is that Pernell Whitaker is'nt a fighter to point to as a posterboy fighter that rises to the occasion.

In reality, he only had that one big fight with Chavez that got him a draw, his other occasion fights were when he was visibly past his best.....namely DLH and Trinidad!
I think he rose to the occasion against DLH. You have to remember he had looked terrible against Rivera and Hurtado in his previous fights, and DLH was a 3-1 favourite going into the bout. It turned out to be anything but a 3-1 fight (even though you gave DLH 3 rounds for every 1 you gave to Whitaker :D)

[JohnThomas1]

How so?

You dont have to rise to the occasion when your opposition is'nt at your level.

I guess you can say he rose to the occasion and drew with the great Chavez......
.....but in his biggest fights, the best you can say is that he drew with Chavez.

My point is that Pernell Whitaker is'nt a fighter to point to as a posterboy fighter that rises to the occasion.

In reality, he only had that one big fight with Chavez that got him a draw, his other occasion fights were when he was visibly past his best.....namely DLH and Trinidad!

I take it you don't rate McGirt, Ramirez or Haugen?

[divac]

I take it you don't rate McGirt, Ramirez or Haugen?There all fine fighters, but none of those guys are on the level of say Chavez, DLH, and Trinidad.

Some fighters are fortunate to have the opportunity that there are great fighters in and around his era that they have the opportunity to be able to rise to such occasions.
Someone like Ray Leonard who had multiple opportunities vs the likes of Duran, Hearns, and Hagler.

Unfortunately for Sweet Pea, that opportunity for him while he was still prime, came only in his draw against Chavez.

......and to answer Scientist.....Bingo, as you said, I viewed DLH-Whitaker and had DLH up by a wide score.....so to me, thats not rising to the occasion.

[Rock0052]

I think a pre-Chavez Taylor would take this by UD. He had the handspeed to connect with Whitaker, heavier hands, and a style that would make the judges give him the close rounds. Even with Sweet Pea's defensive wizardry, I think Taylor would land enough "machine gun" like combos to steal rounds for effective aggression.

Mind you, Whitaker would likely dodge a fair amount as well in such a highlight reel fashion as to give his fans youtube video fodder when they'd inevitably claim robbery in this hypothetical fight. :D

[mr. magoo]

How so?

You dont have to rise to the occasion when your opposition is'nt at your level.

I guess you can say he rose to the occasion and drew with the great Chavez......
.....but in his biggest fights, the best you can say is that he drew with Chavez.

My point is that Pernell Whitaker is'nt a fighter to point to as a posterboy fighter that rises to the occasion.

In reality, he only had that one big fight with Chavez that got him a draw, his other occasion fights were when he was visibly past his best.....namely DLH and Trinidad!

He did more than just rise to the occasion and drew with Chavez. He utterly outboxed and beat Chavez, which resulted in one of the worst robberies of the 90's. He also defeated fine fighters in Haugen, Ramirez, Nelson, Nazario, Pineda, Mcgirt and several others. He unified the lightweight crown, won a belt Jr. Welterweight, and defended the WBC welterweight title some 10 times. If whitaker isn't an all time great who rose to the occasion often, then I don't know what the hell defines a great fighter.

[divac]

You're one of few who actually thinks that was a draw though, and not many people take what you say more seriously than what a retarded monkey attempts to say, so you shouldn't post anymore.
There are plenty of scribes that had the fight close, of the 115-113 variety.The showtime commentators even had it close going into the final two rounds, then they changed their tune to create controversy.The whole media ran with it, and in an age where we did'nt have internet and the ability to post in a boxing forum like this, the Sports Illustrated cover of "Robbed" has carried a heavy stigma of the fight over the years.I'm certain we would have a more varied opinion had Chavez-Whitaker taken place in today's internet age.Let me put it this way and parralel the recent Mayweather-DLH fight.Alot of scribes had Mayweather winning, but quite a few thought DLH eeked it out......There are plenty of posters in this forum who will swear up and down that DLH was robbed......In any regards, most felt it was a close enough fight.........but the point I want to make is that if the DLH-Mayweather fight would have taken place back when Chavez and Whitaker fought, without forums like these for fans to vent.....had that fight been declared a draw back in the day of Chavez-Whitaker.....I'm almost certain we would have had the same caption that was meant to creat controversy..........."Mayweather Robbed!"That Sports Illustrated cover of robbed has imo stereotyped the fight to being a fight that was'nt close.The reality is that there are boxing scribes out there who saw a close fight.Even Max Kellerman who is a big Pernell Whitaker fan and who had Pernell winning vs Chavez, refused when he was working on ESPN to classify the fight alongside the sports biggest robberies.Max when on record as saying that he felt the fight was alot more competitive than what alot of journalist now want to make the fight out to be!Showtime created the controversy, Sports Illustrated followed their lead, and what followed was a brainwashing that created a myth that the fight was'nt close!I invite any non-purist wanabee who has'nt seen the fight, to see it for themselves, and they will see a close fight!

[divac]

I've seen the entire fight, Whitaker won 9 rounds to 3, maybe 8 to 4, and a lot of others think the same way.
You've seen the entire fight, and so have I.My eyes tell me it was a close fight and not the schooling that the Sports Illustrated cover has stereotyped the fight as being.

[Robbi]

I've seen the entire fight, Whitaker won 9 rounds to 3, maybe 8 to 4, and a lot of others think the same way.

ROBBED. I'd like to correct JT's mildness, and I'm sure he'll not mind me doing so as well. Whitaker-Chavez doesn't just go down as one of the worst decisions of the 90's, it was one of the worst decisions in the history of professional prize fighting. Not just in my opinion, but with the vast majority of journalists, fans, fighters and trainers, etc.

[divac]

I´m from Germany and either fighter is nearly completly unknown over here, so no influence by any media and i had Whitaker-Chavez 9-3 for Whitaker. I can´t see how chavez stumbling forward punching air is effective aggression.
If you're indeed unbiased as you say.I invite you to revisit the Chavez-Whitaker fight, but this time as you view, dont have a stereotypical thought process as you score that Whitaker is the defensive wizard in there.If you actually pay attention to the goings on in the fight, you will actually see that except for two rounds in that fight, JC Chavez defense was just as superb as Whitaker's.......yet it goes unoticed by most because the stereotype is that Whitaker is the one that should win the fight based on defense.If you're leaning heavily on defense when it comes to scoring a round to Whitaker, the same must be observed and scored upon for Chavez.Chavez defense was superb, except for two rounds Whitaker's offense was plum ineffective.....but it goes unoticed because the thinking is that it should be Whitaker and not Chavez who should be credited for defense.Rewatch and see!

[sweet_scientist]

There are plenty of scribes that had the fight close, of the 115-113 variety.The showtime commentators even had it close going into the final two rounds, then they changed their tune to create controversy.The whole media ran with it, and in an age where we did'nt have internet and the ability to post in a boxing forum like this, the Sports Illustrated cover of "Robbed" has carried a heavy stigma of the fight over the years.I'm certain we would have a more varied opinion had Chavez-Whitaker taken place in today's internet age.Let me put it this way and parralel the recent Mayweather-DLH fight.Alot of scribes had Mayweather winning, but quite a few thought DLH eeked it out......There are plenty of posters in this forum who will swear up and down that DLH was robbed......In any regards, most felt it was a close enough fight.........but the point I want to make is that if the DLH-Mayweather fight would have taken place back when Chavez and Whitaker fought, without forums like these for fans to vent.....had that fight been declared a draw back in the day of Chavez-Whitaker.....I'm almost certain we would have had the same caption that was meant to creat controversy..........."Mayweather Robbed!"That Sports Illustrated cover of robbed has imo stereotyped the fight to being a fight that was'nt close.The reality is that there are boxing scribes out there who saw a close fight.Even Max Kellerman who is a big Pernell Whitaker fan and who had Pernell winning vs Chavez, refused when he was working on ESPN to classify the fight alongside the sports biggest robberies.Max when on record as saying that he felt the fight was alot more competitive than what alot of journalist now want to make the fight out to be!Showtime created the controversy, Sports Illustrated followed their lead, and what followed was a brainwashing that created a myth that the fight was'nt close!I invite any non-purist wanabee who has'nt seen the fight, to see it for themselves, and they will see a close fight!
We now live in the internet age, and many publications are about. Many have reviewed the fight since that time, or have made reference to it. And from what i've seen, still not one thinks a draw was fair. I haven't seen any publication say 'you know what, the fight was actually a draw' to say nothing of Chavez winning.

Before the fight over half the media were picking Chavez to win. None of them resorted to having Chavez the winner to save their own asses. They all admitted Pea won. Mind you a few did start pulling the Chavez got old overnight routine, for they had to soften the blow to their egos somehow :good

[Nigel_Benn]

Whitaker-Chavez is a disgraceful decision one of the worst but i think Jones robbery in seoul was alot worse.

[divac]

We now live in the internet age, and many publications are about. Many have reviewed the fight since that time, or have made reference to it. And from what i've seen, still not one thinks a draw was fair. I haven't seen any publication say 'you know what, the fight was actually a draw' to say nothing of Chavez winning.

Before the fight over half the media were picking Chavez to win. None of them resorted to having Chavez the winner to save their own asses. They all admitted Pea won. Mind you a few did start pulling the Chavez got old overnight routine, for they had to soften the blow to their egos somehow :good

Phuey Scientist, when publications revisit a fight with a column about it, it does'nt necessarily mean that they have rewatched it.
I would venture to guess that if a journalist is writing about it 10 or so years later, he doing so out of memory.
......and the memory goes back to the Showtime commentators calling it a robbery after they had it virtually even after 10 rounds complete, and even more so, the memory of the Sports Illustrated cover which read robbed.

You know that that cover is etched in the memories of even the non-boxing fans!

[Alo2006]

Whitaker by UD

[sweet_scientist]

Phuey Scientist, when publications revisit a fight with a column about it, it does'nt necessarily mean that they have rewatched it.
No, not necessarily, but often it does mean that.

I would venture to guess that if a journalist is writing about it 10 or so years later, he doing so out of memory.
It depends with what depth they write the piece with. If they merely make a small reference to the fight, usually they are going off memory. If they go in depth, the likelihood is that they have rewatched it.


......and the memory goes back to the Showtime commentators calling it a robbery after they had it virtually even after 10 rounds complete, and even more so, the memory of the Sports Illustrated cover which read robbed.

You know that that cover is etched in the memories of even the non-boxing fans!
If they are journalists worth their salt, I doubt they'd take much notice of what Showtime commentators or Sports Illustrated think about the fight and would rather judge it for thesmelves. Journos can think for themselves sometimes. E.g., look at the DLH-Mosley rematch. Most journos had it for Mosley, despite the HBO crew claiming robbery most foul.

[robert ungurean]

A lot of people will disagree, but prime for prime, I say Taylor. His speed and workrate were just phenomenal, and I think he would win a close decision in a very competitive fight.:good