Chavez/Whitaker: October 1988

[TBooze]

So if that wily old dog history had not bowled us that beamer, and the judges had done their job right in Paris (Like Mr Harry Gibbs did), then we could of had Chavez/Whitaker five years earlier.

Chavez was just passing his peak, but was still an amazing phenomenon; Whitaker was nearing his peak. Damn it, both of them were as good as they were going to get, so who wins?

[My dinner with Conteh]

Difficult choice. :huh

[brooklyn1550]

Pernell Whitaker UD12 Julio Cesar Chavez

[My dinner with Conteh]

...remember the Duva's thought the fix was in vs Ramirez because they wouldn't sign to meet Chavez later that year. I may lean to Chavez here. Tough choice.

[Robbi]

...remember the Duva's thought the fix was in vs Ramirez because they wouldn't sign to meet Chavez later that year. I may lean to Chavez here. Tough choice.

Styles make fights. Whitaker would always have beaten Chavez. I will freely admit, Chavez at lightweight was much better, but so was Whitaker.

Chavez's compact and tight technical style doesn't match up well against Whitaker, who's punches flowed with more ease at lightweight. Chavez was always a measured fighter, whatever weight he fought. Whitaker's movement was much better as well two divisions south.

Even though both fighters would at the top of their game at lightweight, with increased levels in speed and agility. I'm not saying only Whitaker would be quicker, because Chavez would be quicker as well. Foot and handspeed. But those improved attributes would further enhance Whitaker's effectiveness rather than Chavez's.

[ripcity]

While no one will ever confuse Whitaker as lightweight for a KO artist. He had a reasonable amount of power as a lightweight. He was just as skilled and probbly faster at 135 than he was at 147. The only thing I can think of that he lacked at 135 compared to 147 is experance.
I think Chavez/Whitaker in October 1988 would be a lot like their bout in 1993. Mabey a little closer Whitaker 8 rounds Chavez 4

[Street Lethal]

Chavez would be too much for Whitaker then.

[Calroid]

What makes you say this? Anything in particular? Both were better at LW, Whitaker owned him at WW, so what makes you think he gets beaten by the same guy at LW, where he's also better.

Being a slick boxer Whitaker's style was more P4P friendly. When Whitaker went up in weight it didn't effect him as much because he didn't rely on the power of his punches to wear his man down. Chavez on the other hand did. Chavez's style just didn't favor moving up in weight. Thus it is quite conceivable that Chavez could have beaten him at LW. That does not mean he would have though, just that he would have had a better chance at LW. At WW Whitaker was obviously superior.

[Street Lethal]

What makes you say this? Anything in particular? Both were better at LW, Whitaker owned him at WW, so what makes you think he gets beaten by the same guy at LW, where he's also better.
Whitaker was better at welterweight than he was at lightweight. He fought a wild fight with Nelson and Mayweather and was too passive against Ramirez. Whitaker was still developing. He had yet become the master he would become at welterweight. Chavez, on the other hand, was at his peak in 1988, having cleaned out two divisions. Imagining Chavez struggling with Nelson is difficult, and we all know that he didn't have much trouble with Ramirez. Chavez blew Mayweather away, the same Mayweather who would later shake Whitaker up worse than any other opponent shook him. At lightweight Chavez was a machine. Does anybody serious believe that Whitaker could have done to Rosario what Chavez did? Even at welterweight, with Chavez well beyond his prime, he still gave Whitaker the toughest fight of his prime. And this claim that Whitaker own Chavez at welterweight is ridiculous. Yeah, Whitaker won the fight, but what we saw - a peak Whitaker in a close fight with an old Chavez - showed us that a fight in 1988 would have been real trouble for Whitaker.

Whitaker was one of the best boxers ever. I would put him in the top ten best boxers ever. But in 1988, based on all the evidence, Chavez would have put a beating on him. Both are arguably the greatest boxers in the past several decades. I respect both tremendously. And without question Whitaker was robbed when they actually met.

One final comment for now. Am I detecting any animosity towards Chavez? We are all on the same page about what this legend accomplished, right? He was incredible. In his prime he comes as close to being unbeatable as any fighter I have ever seen or studied. He was simply phenomenal. I say this, because when I hear people say Whitaker owned Chavez, I wonder whether the hyperbole about Whitaker is not disguising animosity towards Chavez.

[brownpimp88]

Pernell whitaker would school any pressure fighter, that style simply doesnt bother him, he clowns around with those kind of fighters. The type of person that would give pernell hell is another slick boxer or boxer-puncher. Meldrick taylor would have given pernell whitaker a hell of a fight, chavez would always get schooled, rosario and arguello would have been outboxed by him too.

[brooklyn1550]

Whitaker was better at welterweight than he was at lightweight. He fought a wild fight with Nelson and Mayweather and was too passive against Ramirez. Whitaker was still developing. He had yet become the master he would become at welterweight. Chavez, on the other hand, was at his peak in 1988, having cleaned out two divisions. Imagining Chavez struggling with Nelson is difficult, and we all know that he didn't have much trouble with Ramirez. Chavez blew Mayweather away, the same Mayweather who would later shake Whitaker up worse than any other opponent shook him. At lightweight Chavez was a machine. Does anybody serious believe that Whitaker could have done to Rosario what Chavez did? Even at welterweight, with Chavez well beyond his prime, he still gave Whitaker the toughest fight of his prime. And this claim that Whitaker own Chavez at welterweight is ridiculous. Yeah, Whitaker won the fight, but what we saw - a peak Whitaker in a close fight with an old Chavez - showed us that a fight in 1988 would have been real trouble for Whitaker.

Whitaker was one of the best boxers ever. I would put him in the top ten best boxers ever. But in 1988, based on all the evidence, Chavez would have put a beating on him. Both are arguably the greatest boxers in the past several decades. I respect both tremendously. And without question Whitaker was robbed when they actually met.

One final comment for now. Am I detecting any animosity towards Chavez? We are all on the same page about what this legend accomplished, right? He was incredible. In his prime he comes as close to being unbeatable as any fighter I have ever seen or studied. He was simply phenomenal. I say this, because when I hear people say Whitaker owned Chavez, I wonder whether the hyperbole about Whitaker is not disguising animosity towards Chavez.

:nono

Whitaker was a great welterweight, but an even greater lightweight. At 147, he didn't have the same speed of hand and foot. Whitaker's workrate dropped as he moved north and his reflexes slowed a bit as well.

[Robbi]

Whitaker was better at welterweight than he was at lightweight.

I can't agree to any extent. Whitaker's speed and overall boxing ability was better at lightweight. His sharper reflexes made his defensive moves more effective.


He fought a wild fight with Nelson and Mayweather and was too passive against Ramirez.

Whitaker fought very controlled against Nelson. The fighter who fought a wild fight wasn't Whitaker, it was Nelson. He came forward throwing wide bombs from either hand behind a crossarmed defense. Whitaker's lateral movement and long spearing jabs were threaded through Nelson's guard like the eye of a needle. Whitaker dominated Nelson, and won his rounds convincingly. He played the percentage game well regarding balancing out his offense and defense.


Imagining Chavez struggling with Nelson is difficult, and we all know that he didn't have much trouble with Ramirez

I don't know who struggled with Nelson because it certainly wasn't Whitaker. And regarding Ramirez, well the first fight was one of the worst decisions in boxing history. The rematch was a one sided clinic beyond belief.


At lightweight Chavez was a machine. Does anybody serious believe that Whitaker could have done to Rosario what Chavez did?

Whitaker could never have administered the pounding on Rosario that Chavez managed, of course he couldn't. Simply because he never had the same style to a similar job. Whitaker couldn't give Rosario the same type of beating, but he does have the skills to dominate him as well as Chavez did. Although in a different fashion. He'd dominate Rosario with crisp jabs, quick flurries inside, mixed in with powerful left hands. In more simplier terms, he'd box his ears off.


Even at welterweight, with Chavez well beyond his prime, he still gave Whitaker the toughest fight of his prime. And this claim that Whitaker own Chavez at welterweight is ridiculous.Yeah, Whitaker won the fight, but what we saw - a peak Whitaker in a close fight with an old Chavez - showed us that a fight in 1988 would have been real trouble for Whitaker

McGirt gave Whitaker his toughest fight. And I'd also say Rivera was much more effective than Chavez as well, but not sure when you consider Whitaker's prime, as he fought Rivera three years after Chavez. Its just crazy you even think his prime was at welterweight anyway. Whitaker and Chavez were both equally past their primes when they fought. As I said in my earlier post, both fighters would have been much quicker if they fought at lightweight. But the speed and agility enhances Whitaker's effectiveness more than Chavez's. Simply because his whole style was based on those attributes. Whitaker without question settled down on his punches as he moved up through the divisions, and became more easy to hit while doing so.

[Seamus]

I thought the Whitaker Chavez fight that did happen was a piece of shit and that a draw was justified.

And I also don't care what any honk wants to tell me about it as I was there and not watching it on the tv.

In 88, I would say it would be the same crappy fight with a slight edge more to Chavez.

[brooklyn1550]

I thought the Whitaker Chavez fight that did happen was a piece of shit and that a draw was justified.


Why? Whitaker was making Chavez miss and landing more punches as well as the cleaner punches. He was displaying the greater ring generalship and defense. Chavez was coming forward, but his aggression was ineffective for the most part.

[Robbi]

Why? Whitaker was making Chavez miss and landing more punches as well as the cleaner punches. He was displaying the greater ring generalship and defense. Chavez was coming forward, but his aggression was ineffective for the most part.

Chavez was competitive during some spells, but he was made to look ineffective for the vast majority of the fight. Whitaker never just boxed well against him, he also outpunched Chavez.

[Seamus]

Why? Whitaker was making Chavez miss and landing more punches as well as the cleaner punches. He was displaying the greater ring generalship and defense. Chavez was coming forward, but his aggression was ineffective for the most part.

I know this is tired territory, but I was scoring like a judge, round for round. I was very excited because it was the first fight I made a vacation out of, flew there and built the whole trip around a fight.

So, my contention remains, if the fight were scored as one 36 minute round, PW won. But it was 12 mostly middling rounds- each weighted as an equal share of a whole - with a good deal where JCC was being the boss and PW was reling on posing for the judges. However, the rounds PW won, he won quite a bit more emphatically than JCC won any round, but not emphatically enough to grant a 10-8. Bottomline, at the end of 12, I had PW ahead by 1 point. Thus, a draw didn't seem some great shock. And I had some great seats. You can even see me on the tape at times.

[My dinner with Conteh]

Why would they fix a fight for Whitaker to lose so he couldn't face Chavez? Wouldn't they rather guarantee a win for him in order to get the fight?



To set up an all-Mexican showdown, which was a bigger ticket seller back then. Whitaker could barely draws flies to a bucket of shit at the best of times.

[My dinner with Conteh]

Styles make fights. Whitaker would always have beaten Chavez. I will freely admit, Chavez at lightweight was much better, but so was Whitaker.


Yes, I agree that on their best nights, Whitaker wins, mainly due to styles. But this was prime Chavez vs a Whitaker that still lacked great experience (and question marks about his chin).

[Robbi]

Yes, I agree that on their best nights, Whitaker wins, mainly due to styles. But this was prime Chavez vs a Whitaker that still lacked great experience (and question marks about his chin).

Yeah. I was giving my opinion based on prime v prime at lightweight, and not the specific questioned origianlly asked, October 1988.

[Holmes' Jab]

Tough call at this stage. By '88 Chavez was at the peak of his powers, Whitaker wasn't quite there, yet.

Still, I'd be inclined to give Pea the slight edge. Chavez would pressurize 'till the very end, but loses a close, controversial SD. (7-5)

[My dinner with Conteh]

Yeah. I was giving my opinion based on prime v prime at lightweight, and not the specific questioned origianlly asked, October 1988.


But that's not the question. That's like when KO did 1977 vs 1987 and it was Ali vs Tyson. They did Ali on points just because they thought he'd win at their respective bests, rather that those exact years. It was kind of a "well, we don't want people to think that we think Tyson beats Ali so we better go with Ali". That's what you're doing here. ;)

1988: I think Chavez is too experienced
Best Night: Whitaker UD.

:good

[achillesthegreat]

Whitaker wins twice on Sunday.

[Robbi]

But that's not the question. That's like when KO did 1977 vs 1987 and it was Ali vs Tyson. They did Ali on points just because they thought he'd win at their respective bests, rather that those exact years. It was kind of a "well, we don't want people to think that we think Tyson beats Ali so we better go with Ali". That's what you're doing here. ;)

1988: I think Chavez is too experienced
Best Night: Whitaker UD.

:good

Not many threads get followed up with awnsers to the specific question heading the thread all the time, as some people drift away ever so slightly. Like myself.

Its a tougher fight for Whitaker, but still think he could have edged it. Experience with Chavez, as you correctly pointed out.

Never asked you, who's that on the drums?

[Holmes' Jab]

Never asked you, who's that on the drums?

It's Bonzo (Led Zep). :good

[fists of fury]

Very difficult choice. Pee didn't have the same upper body strength at lightweight, and Chavez was pretty much prime then.

Still, Whitaker was a phenom at lightweight and as close to unbeatable at the weight as anyone I can think of.

I pick Whitaker by close decision.

[Robbi]

It's Bonzo (Led Zep). :good

Ginger Baker wasn't bad on the drums either. I'm sure he played them in Zaire. :rasta

[Street Lethal]

But that's not the question. That's like when KO did 1977 vs 1987 and it was Ali vs Tyson. They did Ali on points just because they thought he'd win at their respective bests, rather that those exact years. It was kind of a "well, we don't want people to think that we think Tyson beats Ali so we better go with Ali". That's what you're doing here. ;)

1988: I think Chavez is too experienced
Best Night: Whitaker UD.

:good
This is real close to the way I see it, except that best night for both would be pick em for me. The Chavez of the Rosario fight was wicked.

[4Rounder]

During Chavez's prime at Lightweight?
I gotta give JCC the edge here mates. Chavez was well removed from his best at welter and we all know that his record fighting at welter is nothing to brag about. I mean Whitaker and Chavez fought to a draw at this weight.

JCC by a very close decision.

[Street Lethal]

It was not a draw at all, it was a schooling, anyone who watched could see that. Stop acting like it was close there, so Chavez would have the definite advantage prime for prime. Neither were prime, and it wasn't close.
It wasn't a draw, but it wasn't a schooling, either. You're exaggerating.

[Robbi]

It wasn't a draw, but it wasn't a schooling, either. You're exaggerating.

One fighter wins 8 or 9 rounds clearly, but all fought competitively.

Another fighter could easily win the same amount of rounds convincingly, domintating over the 3 minutes beyond dispute. Obviously not to the point to which each round being scored 10-8, but still wins them easily.

Whats your criteria for a schooling?.

Whitaker outboxed Chavez, and its not as if you could even argue that Chavez landed the harder blows, which is a scenario that many people dispute on who was effective and who wasn't when it comes to controverisal decisions. Whitaker landed the cleaner power punches.

[redrooster]

Chavez could never deal with the fighters from camp Duva

[Street Lethal]

Chavez could never deal with the fighters from camp Duva
Right, he proved this twice against Taylor.

[Street Lethal]

Whats your criteria for a schooling?.

Holmes v Cooney. Chavez was an aging ring warrior who went in against a master boxer at the top of his game and came up short. Whitaker won the fight, but he didn't take Chavez to school. Holmes, on the other hand, took Cooney to school.

[4Rounder]

I disagree enormously Sweet Pea, I believe the fight was much closer than what your twisted perception of reality will allow you to see. I wouldn't mind claims of Whitaker winning 7-5, but to call it a schooling and an embarrassment on Chavez's behalf is just plain exaggeration and dumb, but then again I am dealing with a nuthugger.

I have stated my opinion and just like Seamus, you won't change this mind.

[ripcity]

It wasn't a draw, but it wasn't a schooling, either. You're exaggerating.
It should be in the dictonary for Schooling.

[Street Lethal]

It should be in the dictonary for Schooling.
Because only then could you point to a definition of schooling that supports your view. Unfortunately for you, the definition of schooling most people use doesn't cover the facts of the Chavez-Whitaker case. But I don't mean to stop a dreamer, so dream on.

[Robbi]

Whitaker clearly won the fight no matter how I scored it. Schooling without winning every minute of ever round.

[divac]

It was not a draw at all, it was a schooling, anyone who watched could see that. Stop acting like it was close there, so Chavez would have the definite advantage prime for prime. Neither were prime, and it wasn't close.


Just say that you would have liked it to have been a schooling.

One of our very own (Seamus) was there at ringside and scoring.
He described the fight pretty well.
......and he is absolutely correct, the fight was far from a schooling.
In fact it was a draw!

[ripcity]

You have to be the most die hard Caavez fan or the bigest hater of Whitker to not see that Whatiker domanated Chavez. The only thing Whitaker didn't do was KO Chavez.

[divac]

I disagree enormously Sweet Pea, I believe the fight was much closer than what your twisted perception of reality will allow you to see. I wouldn't mind claims of Whitaker winning 7-5, but to call it a schooling and an embarrassment on Chavez's behalf is just plain exaggeration and dumb, but then again I am dealing with a nuthugger.

I have stated my opinion and just like Seamus, you won't change this mind.

Where the hell have you people been......:D
.....usually its just me arguing with the whole classic section that this fight was far from a schooling and that the judges actually got it right.

The thing about Whitaker in this fight is that he preoccupied most of his time and rounds purely on defense and finding ways to turn the match into anything other than a boxing match.
In other words, Whitaker played the stalling game with a great many of the rounds.......you look throughout history and he should have known better, judges rarely reward a fighter who stalls a boxing match!!!

[divac]

One final comment for now. Am I detecting any animosity towards Chavez? We are all on the same page about what this legend accomplished, right? He was incredible. In his prime he comes as close to being unbeatable as any fighter I have ever seen or studied. He was simply phenomenal. I say this, because when I hear people say Whitaker owned Chavez, I wonder whether the hyperbole about Whitaker is not disguising animosity towards Chavez.

You're on to something, and I agree with you.

I think alot of the anomosity toward Chavez may have carried over because of the controversy that happened with Meldrick Taylor (Whitaker's stablemate)

There are people in this forum that hate Chavez to this very day, because he knocked out Meldrick Taylor with only seconds to go in the fight.
That can carry over to reasonable thinking and scoring when it comes to scoring a close fight involving Chavez.
These same people would point out that Frankie Randall schooled and kicked his ass in both fights, when in fact both fights were competitively fought close fights.

To say that Chavez lost these fights close and competitively in one thing, but the anger and hate overrides logic, and any fight that is close involving Chavez, now becomes a schooling on the part of his opponent.

So definitely yes, I think you touched on something that is so true SL!

[My dinner with Conteh]

Where the hell have you people been......:D
.....usually its just me arguing with the whole classic section that this fight was far from a schooling and that the judges actually got it right.


They didn't 'really'. One of the judges, Vann I think, took a point away from Whitaker for a low blow despite the ref not instucting them to take it away. What this says to me is that Vann may have 'doctored' his card to achieve a Don King 'draw'.

[divac]

They didn't 'really'. One of the judges, Vann I think, took a point away from Whitaker for a low blow despite the ref not instucting them to take it away. What this says to me is that Vann may have 'doctored' his card to achieve a Don King 'draw'.

I could be wrong, but I think you may be confusing that action you described by the judge with another fight.

I dont remember a stink being brought up over a judge taking it upon himself to deduct a point for low blows.

Can anybody point us in the direction of a link where an official round by round Chavez-Whitaker scorecard is posted??????

[baddest]

This would be an interesting affair, but I stil think Whitaker wins this although the physical contests on the inside, I might favor Chavez, I don't see Chavez doing enough to cut off the ring while Whitaker's fighting off the backfoot. Also, Taylor-Chavez was competitive, Whitaker-Chavez WAS a schooling IMO. Chavez even looked defeated towards the end as he knew surely he couldn't turn around his situation.

[laxpdx]

Whitaker by UD. Chavez may give a better account of himself here than at WW, but Pernell is just wrong for him.

[Gesta]

Agree with Lax , JCC would be a lot better at this time and was better at LW than he was at WW , close SD win for Pea , who I thought won their bout with ease , out fought JCC on the inside as well as the out side.

[PowerPuncher]

Whitaker was pre-prime, Chavez was at his best but I still think Whitaker's style is all wrong for CHavez. Despite being 'inexperienced' (didn't he have 600amateur bouts or something silly) Whitaker was still a masterful boxer, the defense, the movement, the jab, was already the best in LW history as far as I'm concerned. Chavez just doesn't have an answer to the Whitaker puzzle