Al Bernstein's scorecard for Whitaker-Chavez: 118-110 Whitaker

[sweet_scientist]

Chavez winning rounds 1 and 5. Whitaker winning the rest.

Is it defendable? Discuss :D









































Sorry for the troll....but hey, it's the general forum :good

[brooklyn1550]

Not a bad scorecard. I scored it either 9-3 or 8-4 for Whitaker. Either way, it's clear that he should have won the decision.

[knockout]

i remember watching this fight when I was a kid and I wasn't hardcore into boxing and I knew Withaker was winning.i'll log off right now see you when your on. :hi: :bolt

[Kegsy]

I had whitaker by about 8 round to 4 if my memory serves me correct.

[4Rounder]

Draw for me. The fight wasn't even that good anyways.

[divac]

Where did you hear or read of Al Bernstein having it that wide.

I dont always agree with Bernstein, but I've always found him to be pretty honest in his assesments.

Poor Al must have had on off night that night, or must have seen the fight and judged it under the influence!:D

Beside his scorecard, I'd love to read more on Bernsteins take on the fight!

[sweet_scientist]

Where did you hear or read of Al Bernstein having it that wide.

I just received an ESPN copy of the fight the other day, with commentary by Al Bernstein and Barry Tompkins. Bernstein is giving his round by round as the fight goes. I'm not sure what year it was filmed in, but I'm guessing it was around the mid-90's.

I dont always agree with Bernstein, but I've always found him to be pretty honest in his assesments.

Poor Al must have had on off night that night, or must have seen the fight and judged it under the influence!:D

Beside his scorecard, I'd love to read more on Bernsteins take on the fight!

Bernstein called it the worst robbery in a major fight from the last 20 years (from I guess 1995 or so when the fight was being called).

With his card he was saying that a case could be made for Chavez winning the 2nd round (as well as the 1st and 5th which he gave to Chavez) but that the other rounds were all pretty clear in Whitaker's favour.

If you'd like a copy Vlade, give us a pm and perhaps I could send it to you :good

[George W Hedge]

I had Chavez barely edging out the victory winning 7 rounds to 5.

Chavez is 1 of my all time fav fighters but your crazy if you thought he won that fight.

There was a lot of close rds but even if you give jc all the close rds (which is really unfair) the best he gets is a draw.

The rds that julio won where by a narrow margin where as whitaker won a few clear cut rds.... in fact rds 3, 7 & 8 where pretty terrible rds for chavez, pernell dominated them rds where as jc never had 1 dominating rd.

Whitaker won the fight but both at their peaks would be much closer IMO, in fact I may even lean julio`s way in a 15 rder but flip a coin for a 12 rder.

:good

[Thread Stealer]

I had it Whitaker 116-112.

While it was a bad decision, it wasn't as bad as a lot of others I have seen.

Chavez won his rounds by much smaller margins. The rounds he won (or ones that you could give him) were closer, while Pea clearly won more of his rounds.

Although I thought Whitaker won, it doesn't compare with some of the terrible decisions that have occurred like Holyfield-Lewis I, Augustus-Burton, Escalera-Everett, etc...

[maciek4]

It wasnt as bad as Whitaker-DLH.

DLH 116-112 you cant win fights just by making the guy miss here and there.

[kg0208]

DLH 116-112 you cant win fights just by making the guy miss here and there.

Right, very true. Whitaker landed more and threw more as well.

[hitman_hatton1]

9-3 or 8-4 whitaker is about right.

chavez wins 10 and 12 as well i think it is.

i gave rd 1 to whitaker.

[Scar]

Whitaker was CLEARLY winning that fight. Chavez made a complete fool out of his self when he said in his book that he "clearly" won that fight and "it wasn't even close".

[quintonjacksonfan]

Chavez was always a poor loser. Remember him flipping out on Merchant after his second fight with Oscar

[Thread Stealer]

Chavez was always a poor loser. Remember him flipping out on Merchant after his second fight with Oscar

Remember him after the Randall loss too?

It must be hard to win all those fights and then learn to accept losing.

[brooklyn1550]

I had Chavez barely edging out the victory winning 7 rounds to 5.

Please tell me you are joking, because if you are not...wow, get out:hi:

[acb]

Hey Sweet Scientist when are you going to upload that Camacho fight? :yep:bbb

[Dorfmeister]

All right folks, here is once and for all my view on that fight night in San Antonio, TX between the two 5 time World Champions, 31 year old Julio Cesar Chavez with the blue and white trunks from the blue corner ( 87-0,75 KOs) and Pernell Whitaker with the blue trunks with the red trim from the red corner (32-1,15 KOs) for Whitaker's WBC Welterweight Championship, with 60 thousand attending the Big Fight.

Round 1 - Whitaker 10-9: Pernell takes big right hand but lands enough soft jabs and lefts to the body, it's a feeling out round with a lot of clinching, holding and hitting...

Round 2 - Chavez 19-19: Chavez closes the distance and gets too many body shots in, some rights and despite Whitaker landing an unusual big overhand left and some jabs, it's not enough to steal the round for Sweet Pea.

Round 3 - Whitaker 29-28: All Whitaker, blocking Chavez rights, timing him with the double jab, countering with the left and turning him, seems that he'd have to move backwards all night long at this point and still be effective. Beautiful right hook to finish the stanza.

Round 4 - Whitaker 39-37: A lot of clinching and Chavez hitting downstairs, but at a certain point, Sweet Pea unloads on Chavez against the ropes and the mexican, the Lion from Culiacan has to show some boxing for the first time.

Round 5 - Chavez 47-48: Chavez starts out with 5 body shots, 2 right hands and connects always to the body or to the head when Pernell takes steps backwards. There are exchange of jabs, a double jab from Whitaker and a flush left couter from Pernell but not enough compared with that start from Chavez.

Round 6 - Chavez 57-57: Big rights down the middle from Chavez, two left counters from Whitaker but Sweet Pea really buys time hitting JCC with two flagrant low blows and points are not taken away. Chavez finishes with big rights and glancing shots after the time out for the low blows.

Round 7 - Whitaker 67-66: Pernell in control as Dr. Ferdie Pacheco commenting for Showtime points out his Ring Generalship, making Chavez fight his fight despite being the stalker, but above all, morphying the rhythm, altering the tempo with faster hands and feet. Whitaker continues taking shots as he gets off but lands big left counters too often.

Round 8 - Whitaker 77-75: The Central point in this fight in my view as Sweet Pea flurries with head shots, uppercuts, body shots, hooks flush on Chavez face, pummeling on him with handspeed and accuracy. Before round 6 with was back and forth, but these rounds 6 and 7 made it for Whitaker more than anything else...

Round 9 - Chavez 86-86: Chavez comes out bombing with right hands and Sweet Pea tires, his jab is not as effective and he just puts a combination here and there, a fast left hook and a counter...

Round 10 - Whitaker 97-95: Chavez corner make him aware of the sense of urgency to come forward and he comes out strong exchanging rights with Whitaker's left counters but Whitaker controls with the jab against the desperate Lion of Culiacan, Sinaloa.

Round 11 - Whitaker 107-104: Whitaker pressing Chavez against the ropes and out-punching him with right hands.

Round 12 - Chavez 116-114: Chavez pressing Chavez smartly and once again against the ropes but misses with a lot of jabs and conters as Chavez finally moves his head correctly and gets his share of connects, attacking the body and making Whitaker pay for missing as he is too tired to keep his man off for 12-3 minutes rounds.

Frank Marti, Aarau Switzerland, and Mickey Vann, Ukited Kingdom, saw it even 115-115 ( and that's understandable cause rounds 1, rounds 10 or 11 could have gone to JCC from different perspectives), Jack Woodruff saw it as I did, 7 rounds to 5 to Whitaker or 115-113 ( I had 116-114)... Al Bernestein's score is a tranvestite of course and we all know Sweet Pea didn't lose his title ( he would against Hoya but that's another matter) and Chavez didn't lose his undefeated record ( would lose first bout to Frankie Randall in another controversy with R. Steele taking 2 points away for low blows that costed Chavez the fight whereas J. Cortez didn't take from Whitaker that night). End of Discussion for me.

[chimba]

I had Chavez barely edging out the victory winning 7 rounds to 5.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Sonny Carson]

Whitaker was CLEARLY winning that fight. Chavez made a complete fool out of his self when he said in his book that he "clearly" won that fight and "it wasn't even close".
You can't blame him for being a "True Mexican" and thinking he win's when he hasn't.

[dave82]

Whitake clearly won 117-111.

[sweet_scientist]

All right folks, here is once and for all my view on that fight night in San Antonio, TX between the two 5 time World Champions, 31 year old Julio Cesar Chavez with the blue and white trunks from the blue corner ( 87-0,75 KOs) and Pernell Whitaker with the blue trunks with the red trim from the red corner (32-1,15 KOs) for Whitaker's WBC Welterweight Championship, with 60 thousand attending the Big Fight.

Round 1 - Whitaker 10-9: Pernell takes big right hand but lands enough soft jabs and lefts to the body, it's a feeling out round with a lot of clinching, holding and hitting...

Round 2 - Chavez 19-19: Chavez closes the distance and gets too many body shots in, some rights and despite Whitaker landing an unusual big overhand left and some jabs, it's not enough to steal the round for Sweet Pea.

Round 3 - Whitaker 29-28: All Whitaker, blocking Chavez rights, timing him with the double jab, countering with the left and turning him, seems that he'd have to move backwards all night long at this point and still be effective. Beautiful right hook to finish the stanza.

Round 4 - Whitaker 39-37: A lot of clinching and Chavez hitting downstairs, but at a certain point, Sweet Pea unloads on Chavez against the ropes and the mexican, the Lion from Culiacan has to show some boxing for the first time.

Round 5 - Chavez 47-48: Chavez starts out with 5 body shots, 2 right hands and connects always to the body or to the head when Pernell takes steps backwards. There are exchange of jabs, a double jab from Whitaker and a flush left couter from Pernell but not enough compared with that start from Chavez.

Round 6 - Chavez 57-57: Big rights down the middle from Chavez, two left counters from Whitaker but Sweet Pea really buys time hitting JCC with two flagrant low blows and points are not taken away. Chavez finishes with big rights and glancing shots after the time out for the low blows.

Round 7 - Whitaker 67-66: Pernell in control as Dr. Ferdie Pacheco commenting for Showtime points out his Ring Generalship, making Chavez fight his fight despite being the stalker, but above all, morphying the rhythm, altering the tempo with faster hands and feet. Whitaker continues taking shots as he gets off but lands big left counters too often.

Round 8 - Whitaker 77-75: The Central point in this fight in my view as Sweet Pea flurries with head shots, uppercuts, body shots, hooks flush on Chavez face, pummeling on him with handspeed and accuracy. Before round 6 with was back and forth, but these rounds 6 and 7 made it for Whitaker more than anything else...

Round 9 - Chavez 86-86: Chavez comes out bombing with right hands and Sweet Pea tires, his jab is not as effective and he just puts a combination here and there, a fast left hook and a counter...

Round 10 - Whitaker 97-95: Chavez corner make him aware of the sense of urgency to come forward and he comes out strong exchanging rights with Whitaker's left counters but Whitaker controls with the jab against the desperate Lion of Culiacan, Sinaloa.

Round 11 - Whitaker 107-104: Whitaker pressing Chavez against the ropes and out-punching him with right hands.

Round 12 - Chavez 116-114: Chavez pressing Chavez smartly and once again against the ropes but misses with a lot of jabs and conters as Chavez finally moves his head correctly and gets his share of connects, attacking the body and making Whitaker pay for missing as he is too tired to keep his man off for 12-3 minutes rounds.

Frank Marti, Aarau Switzerland, and Mickey Vann, Ukited Kingdom, saw it even 115-115 ( and that's understandable cause rounds 1, rounds 10 or 11 could have gone to JCC from different perspectives), Jack Woodruff saw it as I did, 7 rounds to 5 to Whitaker or 115-113 ( I had 116-114)... Al Bernestein's score is a tranvestite of course and we all know Sweet Pea didn't lose his title ( he would against Hoya but that's another matter) and Chavez didn't lose his undefeated record ( would lose first bout to Frankie Randall in another controversy with R. Steele taking 2 points away for low blows that costed Chavez the fight whereas J. Cortez didn't take from Whitaker that night). End of Discussion for me.

Rounds 10 or 11 could have gone to Chavez? :patsch

Why is Bernstein's card that bad? Whitaker could have arguably taken the 5th, 6th, 9th and 12th, it's not as if Chavez clearly won those rounds.

[sweet_scientist]

Hey Sweet Scientist when are you going to upload that Camacho fight? :yep:bbb

Are you speaking of Camacho-Ramirez? I am still waiting for it. When I get it, it will be put up:good

[divac]

I just received an ESPN copy of the fight the other day, with commentary by Al Bernstein and Barry Tompkins. Bernstein is giving his round by round as the fight goes. I'm not sure what year it was filmed in, but I'm guessing it was around the mid-90's.



Bernstein called it the worst robbery in a major fight from the last 20 years (from I guess 1995 or so when the fight was being called).

With his card he was saying that a case could be made for Chavez winning the 2nd round (as well as the 1st and 5th which he gave to Chavez) but that the other rounds were all pretty clear in Whitaker's favour.

If you'd like a copy Vlade, give us a pm and perhaps I could send it to you :good


If you upload the fight Scientist, I'd love to see and hear Bernstein rationalize how in the heck he gives 10 of 12 rounds to Pernell Whitaker.
I doubt Whitaker thought he won that many!:lol: :nut

[jyuza]

Frank Marti, Aarau Switzerland, and Mickey Vann, Ukited Kingdom, saw it even 115-115 ( and that's understandable cause rounds 1, rounds 10 or 11 could have gone to JCC from different perspectives), Jack Woodruff saw it as I did, 7 rounds to 5 to Whitaker or 115-113 ( I had 116-114)... Al Bernestein's score is a tranvestite of course and we all know Sweet Pea didn't lose his title ( he would against Hoya but that's another matter) and Chavez didn't lose his undefeated record ( would lose first bout to Frankie Randall in another controversy with R. Steele taking 2 points away for low blows that costed Chavez the fight whereas J. Cortez didn't take from Whitaker that night). End of Discussion for me.

What do you mean Chavez didn't lose his undefeated record ? If you think he lost the Whitaker fight, like many here, then he lost the Whitaker fight and his undefeated status as well... don't understand that.

[4Rounder]

What do you mean Chavez didn't lose his undefeated record ? If you think he lost the Whitaker fight, like many here, then he lost the Whitaker fight and his undefeated status as well... don't understand that.
He means its an official draw, and nothing will ever change it. Which means that JCC stayed undefeated. He didn't really lose the fight officially.

[jyuza]

He means its an official draw, and nothing will ever change it. Which means that JCC stayed undefeated. He didn't really lose the fight officially.

My bad, I thought he referred to his scoring and not the official decision...

[4Rounder]

My bad, I thought he referred to his scoring and not the official decision...

no prob.

[Holmes' Jab]

It's not that outrageous a scorecard. I scored it a bit closer than Bernstein, 117-111 in favour of Whitaker.

[My dinner with Conteh]

The guy in this thread who had it 7-5 is even more baffling. Just out of interest, was there any newspaper/mag (non-Mexican) that had Chavez winning or a draw? The draw was obviously 'fixed' regardless because Vann deducted a point when it was against the rules. A case of a 'doctored' scorecard perhaps? ;)


ps. Anyone see the Johnasson-Gomez fight last week, when Vann stopped it? Although it was a decent stoppage I thought, when one of Gomez's corner went to him you overheard him say "Don't worry Mike, Vann's a crook, everybody knows that". :D

[Dorfmeister]

Rounds 10 or 11 could have gone to Chavez? :patsch

Why is Bernstein's card that bad? Whitaker could have arguably taken the 5th, 6th, 9th and 12th, it's not as if Chavez clearly won those rounds.

Whitaker didn't do much either in those particular rounds so I always give those kind of rounds to the guy who's taking the fight to his opponent. What people don't see is that every time Pernell jabs and takes some steps back, he eats a right hand down the middle or to the body and those are clean, effective shots. Pernell didn't win in what could be mentioned as Ring Generalship ( as Ferdie Pacheco wrongly called it) cause he didn't manoeuvre the Mexican where he wanted to, he just hit him first and moved backwards almost all night long. Then you cannot speak about Defense either cause he didn't block shots and made Chavez miss... Finally, in what concerns to Clean Punching and Effective Aggressiveness, both men had their cases as Pernell dominated with the jab and the fast hybrid left uppercut/hook inside and Chavez always came forward and threw series of 3,4 body shots at a time, Pernell hit Chavez flush with lefts but JCC hit a lot with straight, heavier rights and his own left jabs. People don't want to acknowledge that it was a close fight cause they wanted to assume it would have been a robbery anyway... But how come it was? Pernell didn't lose his 147 pound title and his P4P status as Jimmy Lennon Jr announced it to be, a fight for P4P stature... Therefore, I conclude people wanted badly to see JCC lose and balanced their opinions and scorings to make it wide for Sweet Pea and then alledged it was a robbery. Merdrick Taylor won almost every round against JCC, Steele stopped that one when he didn't necessarily need to, Pernell had the same team with Georgie Benton and Lou Duva so it's logical this was to be some sort of venganza, vendetta or vengeance and Al Bernstein joined the stars and stripes spirit and balanced his rounds scoring to the american from the beginning. Pernell won close ( in my view) but the decision was technically a majority draw - Sweet Pea is a HOFer and the Lion of Culiacan was the best fighter of his generation.

[My dinner with Conteh]

Chavez was always a poor loser. Remember him flipping out on Merchant after his second fight with Oscar


I went off Chavez towards the end of his career. What an awful bad loser/quitter he became. Sad really. :-(

[sweet_scientist]

Round 10:
Jabs:
Whitaker - 11
Chavez - 1

Power Punches:
Whitaker - 17
Chavez - 11

Round 11
Jabs:
Whitaker - 9
Chavez - 2

Power Punches:
Whitaker - 17
Chavez - 12

Just some nice stats to set the scene :good

Whitaker didn't do much either in those particular rounds so I always give those kind of rounds to the guy who's taking the fight to his opponent.



What people don't see is that every time Pernell jabs and takes some steps back, he eats a right hand down the middle or to the body and those are clean, effective shots. Pernell didn't win in what could be mentioned as Ring Generalship ( as Ferdie Pacheco wrongly called it) cause he didn't manoeuvre the Mexican where he wanted to, he just hit him first and moved backwards almost all night long.

Right, it was Whitaker's plan to get trapped in corners and allow CHavez to tee off at him, he was not succesful at that at all. All he did is hit and move.

Then you cannot speak about Defense either cause he didn't block shots and made Chavez miss...

:huh

Finally, in what concerns to Clean Punching and Effective Aggressiveness, both men had their cases as Pernell dominated with the jab and the fast hybrid left uppercut/hook inside and Chavez always came forward and threw series of 3,4 body shots at a time, Pernell hit Chavez flush with lefts but JCC hit a lot with straight, heavier rights and his own left jabs.

In my mind there's no question Whitaker was landing the cleaner, harder shots throughout most of the fight. Chavez, other than a few select right hands, didn't land anything of significance. His signature punch the left to the body, was rendered utterly useless. He became so scared of eating the Whitaker jab by the midway point of the fight that he hardly threw it again for the rest of the night.

People don't want to acknowledge that it was a close fight cause they wanted to assume it would have been a robbery anyway... But how come it was? Pernell didn't lose his 147 pound title and his P4P status as Jimmy Lennon Jr announced it to be, a fight for P4P stature... Therefore, I conclude people wanted badly to see JCC lose and balanced their opinions and scorings to make it wide for Sweet Pea and then alledged it was a robbery. Merdrick Taylor won almost every round against JCC, Steele stopped that one when he didn't necessarily need to, Pernell had the same team with Georgie Benton and Lou Duva so it's logical this was to be some sort of venganza, vendetta or vengeance and Al Bernstein joined the stars and stripes spirit and balanced his rounds scoring to the american from the beginning. Pernell won close ( in my view) but the decision was technically a majority draw - Sweet Pea is a HOFer and the Lion of Culiacan was the best fighter of his generation.

Right, the American Press were hankering to have egg on their faces after the majority picked Chavez to win. They just wanted their proffessional opinions to be rendered wrong and so claimed robbery when they didn't need to.

By the way, was this only a stars and stripes bias? Wasn't the whole world biased? Becuase I don't seem to remember anyone NOT claiming this was a robbery.

[My dinner with Conteh]

By the way, was this only a stars and stripes bias? Wasn't the whole world biased? Becuase I don't seem to remember anyone NOT claiming this was a robbery.


Yes, and anyone who knows my posts will be well aware that I'd be the first to jump on it if it were 'Yank Bias'. :good

[Dorfmeister]

Round 10:
Jabs:
Whitaker - 11
Chavez - 1

Power Punches:
Whitaker - 17
Chavez - 11

Round 11
Jabs:
Whitaker - 9
Chavez - 2

Power Punches:
Whitaker - 17
Chavez - 12

Just some nice stats to set the scene :good




Right, the American Press were hankering to have egg on their faces after the majority picked Chavez to win. They just wanted their proffessional opinions to be rendered wrong and so claimed robbery when they didn't need to.

By the way, was this only a stars and stripes bias? Wasn't the whole world biased? Becuase I don't seem to remember anyone NOT claiming this was a robbery.

I don't know if the American Press was afraid of being descredited but the fact is that it was the American Press which complained about the decision and it happened in front of 60 thousand in San Antonio, Texas, USA, not in front of 130 thousand in Ciudad del Mexico, Distrito Federal, Mexico ( vs Greg Haugen). In what concerns to professional opinions, then we cannot forget that the judges were also professionals, Fran Marti, Mickey Vann and american judge Jack Woodruff ( scored it 115-113), so we are not questioning anybody's professionalism, just their opinions as boxing experts and according to their nationalities and the nationality of the public they are broadcasting for.

You cannot speak for the whole world, maybe just for yourself and the impression you have about what american citizens and british citizens felt, well, maybe not even that. Nobody said anything about the judges and press being biased but I feel that reporters such as Al Bernstein have bosses and their companies are based in a specific country, and the goal of that company is to make profit in that specific country. Has Don King said in name of his company that Chavez deserved to lose?...

You don't remember anyone not claiming this was a robbery? I just remember people saying it was close and controversial and that is how far our memories go, sweet_scientist's and Dorfmeister's.

Ending with the beginning, I have to ask your source for the aforementioned punch stats or else you gonna make me see those rounds again and possibly make my own jab/power punch stats and I don't feel like it... It was a very uninteresting fight, much in contrast to JCC's other fights, and I personally don't like to see Pernell's negative fighting quite frankly.

[Robbi]

Whitaker was CLEARLY winning that fight. Chavez made a complete fool out of his self when he said in his book that he "clearly" won that fight and "it wasn't even close".

Chavez does love alcohol remember.

[Pimp C]

I've seen the fight many times and always have the same two scores either 9-3 or 8-4 Pea

[PH|LLA]

All right folks, here is once and for all my view on that fight night in San Antonio, TX between the two 5 time World Champions, 31 year old Julio Cesar Chavez with the blue and white trunks from the blue corner ( 87-0,75 KOs) and Pernell Whitaker with the blue trunks with the red trim from the red corner (32-1,15 KOs) for Whitaker's WBC Welterweight Championship, with 60 thousand attending the Big Fight.

Round 1 - Whitaker 10-9: Pernell takes big right hand but lands enough $soft jabs and lefts to the body, it's a feeling out round with a lot of clinching, holding and hitting...

Round 2 - Chavez 19-19: Chavez closes the distance and gets too many body shots in, some rights and despite Whitaker landing an unusual big overhand left and some jabs, it's not enough to steal the round for Sweet Pea.

Round 3 - Whitaker 29-28: All Whitaker, blocking Chavez rights, timing him with the double jab, countering with the left and turning him, seems that he'd have to move backwards all night long at this point and still be effective. Beautiful right hook to finish the stanza.

Round 4 - Whitaker 39-37: A lot of clinching and Chavez hitting downstairs, but at a certain point, Sweet Pea unloads on Chavez against the ropes and the mexican, the Lion from Culiacan has to show some boxing for the first time.

Round 5 - Chavez 47-48: Chavez starts out with 5 body shots, 2 right hands and connects always to the body or to the head when Pernell takes steps backwards. There are exchange of jabs, a double jab from Whitaker and a flush left couter from Pernell but not enough compared with that start from Chavez.

Round 6 - Chavez 57-57: Big rights down the middle from Chavez, two left counters from Whitaker but Sweet Pea really buys time hitting JCC with two flagrant low blows and points are not taken away. Chavez finishes with big rights and glancing shots after the time out for the low blows.

Round 7 - Whitaker 67-66: Pernell in control as Dr. Ferdie Pacheco commenting for Showtime points out his Ring Generalship, making Chavez fight his fight despite being the stalker, but above all, morphying the rhythm, altering the tempo with faster hands and feet. Whitaker continues taking shots as he gets off but lands big left counters too often.

Round 8 - Whitaker 77-75: The Central point in this fight in my view as Sweet Pea flurries with head shots, uppercuts, body shots, hooks flush on Chavez face, pummeling on him with handspeed and accuracy. Before round 6 with was back and forth, but these rounds 6 and 7 made it for Whitaker more than anything else...

Round 9 - Chavez 86-86: Chavez comes out bombing with right hands and Sweet Pea tires, his jab is not as effective and he just puts a combination here and there, a fast left hook and a counter...

Round 10 - Whitaker 97-95: Chavez corner make him aware of the sense of urgency to come forward and he comes out strong exchanging rights with Whitaker's left counters but Whitaker controls with the jab against the desperate Lion of Culiacan, Sinaloa.

Round 11 - Whitaker 107-104: Whitaker pressing Chavez against the ropes and out-punching him with right hands.

Round 12 - Chavez 116-114: Chavez pressing Chavez smartly and once again against the ropes but misses with a lot of jabs and conters as Chavez finally moves his head correctly and gets his share of connects, attacking the body and making Whitaker pay for missing as he is too tired to keep his man off for 12-3 minutes rounds.

Frank Marti, Aarau Switzerland, and Mickey Vann, Ukited Kingdom, saw it even 115-115 ( and that's understandable cause rounds 1, rounds 10 or 11 could have gone to JCC from different perspectives), Jack Woodruff saw it as I did, 7 rounds to 5 to Whitaker or 115-113 ( I had 116-114)... Al Bernestein's score is a tranvestite of course and we all know Sweet Pea didn't lose his title ( he would against Hoya but that's another matter) and Chavez didn't lose his undefeated record ( would lose first bout to Frankie Randall in another controversy with R. Steele taking 2 points away for low blows that costed Chavez the fight whereas J. Cortez didn't take from Whitaker that night). End of Discussion for me.
you gave 11 points to chavez in round 9, and 11 points to sweet pea in round 10

[Lampley]

I didn't think it was a close fight. Pea took it easily. He made Chavez look extremely ponderous and, quite frankly, above his head.

[Dorfmeister]

you gave 11 points to chavez in round 9, and 11 points to sweet pea in round 10

Thnx bro, I was halfway into sleep but now you have given me the right correction, so it's exactly 115-113 to Sweet Pea a la Jack Woodruff. Many apologies to sweet_scientist 2 but nothing affects what was already stated...

[sweet_scientist]

I don't know if the American Press was afraid of being descredited but the fact is that it was the American Press which complained about the decision
It wasn't JUST the American press who complained though, it was damn near ANYONE who covered the fight.

If you want to look to any credit for the fight not being a robbery, I have heard that USA Boxing had the fight for Chavez and 3 out of 10 publications covering the fight in Mexico thought it wasn't a robbery.

USA Boxing I'm told did a top 100 all time and left Whitaker out of it, and went out of there way to mention that he wouldn't make a top 200. Classy publication that, look for it in all latrines.

As for the Mexican publications, if 7 out of the 10 thought Whitaker was robbed (as William Detloff tells us) then that's pretty damning right there.

Now let's look at the other sources which I've seen which covered the fight:


Juan Carlos Gutierrez, Excelsior: 115-114

Whitaker Bill Lyon, Philadelphia Inquirer: 117-115 Whitaker

Richard Martinez, San Antonio Express-Light: 115-113 Whitaker

Tim Kawakami, Los Angeles Times: 115-113 Whitaker

Michael Wilbon, The Washington Post: 115-113 Whitaker

Carlos Hernandez, La Journada: 116-114 Whitaker

Carlos Rivero, Uno Mas Uno: 116-113 Whitaker

Joe Gergen, Newsday: 116-112 Whitaker

Bernard Fernandez, Philadelphia Daily News: 116-112 Whitaker

Jon Saraceno, USA Today: 116-112 Whitaker

Ed Shyuler, The Associated Press: 116-112 Whitaker

Bert Sugar, Boxing Illustrated: 116-112 Whitaker

Bill Nack, Sports Illustrated: 117-111 Whitaker

Steve Farhood, The Ring: 117-111 Whitaker


The only other sources I know which covered the fight were KO Magazine in January 1994 and World Boxing in February 1994. I haven't got either mag, but with cover stories which read "Outrage at the Alamodome: Sweet Pea Shafted!" and "Chavez-Whitaker: Was the Fix In?", I wouldn't get my hopes up too high for a Chavez friendly scorecard.

If you can come up with some other publications, especially non-American ones, which proclaimed that the fight wasn't a robbery (or heaven forbid had a draw or a Chavez win posted) please let me know. :good


and it happened in front of 60 thousand in San Antonio, Texas, USA, not in front of 130 thousand in Ciudad del Mexico, Distrito Federal, Mexico ( vs Greg Haugen). In what concerns to professional opinions, then we cannot forget that the judges were also professionals, Fran Marti, Mickey Vann and american judge Jack Woodruff ( scored it 115-113), so we are not questioning anybody's professionalism, just their opinions as boxing experts and according to their nationalities and the nationality of the public they are broadcasting for.
What difference does the location of the fight make to whether it was a robbery or not? And did you think that 50 of the 60 thousand that were there weren't barracking for Chavez?

As to the professionalism of the judges, if you respect Vann as a judge then you don't know enough about him, and oh, let us not touch upon the integrity of Mr Suliaman and Mr King. Can you find two more crooked personages in the game?


You cannot speak for the whole world, maybe just for yourself and the impression you have about what american citizens and british citizens felt, well, maybe not even that. Nobody said anything about the judges and press being biased but I feel that reporters such as Al Bernstein have bosses and their companies are based in a specific country, and the goal of that company is to make profit in that specific country. Has Don King said in name of his company that Chavez deserved to lose?...
Chavez would make America WAY more money than Whitaker ever could. Let me tell you, the 60 thousand that rocked up to the Alamodome weren't there to see Whitaker; they were there to see Chavez. Chavez had an awesome American fanbase, whereas Whitaker needed to be in Virginia to fill an arena. The interest was in keeping Chavez at the top, make no mistake about that.

And as for Don King, he thought Julio had the edge. Kinda like he felt Nelson had the edge against Fenech in their first fight.

You don't remember anyone not claiming this was a robbery? I just remember people saying it was close and controversial and that is how far our memories go, sweet_scientist's and Dorfmeister's.
I've given you some material above as to how the fight was scored. I'd like to know who you remember merely thinking it was controversial and not a robbery. Other than the likes of King, Suliaman, Vann and Marti of course.

Ending with the beginning, I have to ask your source for the aforementioned punch stats or else you gonna make me see those rounds again and possibly make my own jab/power punch stats and I don't feel like it... It was a very uninteresting fight, much in contrast to JCC's other fights, and I personally don't like to see Pernell's negative fighting quite frankly.
Stats come from Boxing Illustrated, Bert Sugar's rag with the "Don't Buy This Magazine If you Thought "THE FIGHT" was a Draw." cover. December, 1993, p. 29.

You don't like to see Whitaker's style? I'll go out on a limb here and say anyone who thought this wasn't a robbery would hold the same view.

[My dinner with Conteh]

Another one from World Boxing: "Was the fix in?"

[joe the great]

Too be honest I didn't see the whole fight, but I thought that it was very close. I did like Al's scorecard on the Moorer-Holyfield I better than HBO's though.

[sweet_scientist]

Another one from World Boxing: "Was the fix in?"

Yeah mentioned it above mate :good

[My dinner with Conteh]

Yeah mentioned it above mate :good



Sorry mate. I do have the issue in case you thought I was just trying to be a 'know all-fuck all'. I think it's the one with the Ali: overrated inside. :good

[sweet_scientist]

Sorry mate. I do have the issue in case you thought I was just trying to be a 'know all-fuck all'. I think it's the one with the Ali: overrated inside. :good

:lol: Nice.

Did they put up any scorecards from the Whitaker-Chavez fight, or were they merely investigating the possibility of a King-Suliaman fix?

[Dorfmeister]

If you can come up with some other publications, especially non-American ones, which proclaimed that the fight wasn't a robbery (or heaven forbid had a draw or a Chavez win posted) please let me know. :good



I've given you some material above as to how the fight was scored. I'd like to know who you remember merely thinking it was controversial and not a robbery. Other than the likes of King, Suliaman, Vann and Marti of course.


Stats come from Boxing Illustrated, Bert Sugar's rag with the "Don't Buy This Magazine If you Thought "THE FIGHT" was a Draw." cover. December, 1993, p. 29.

You don't like to see Whitaker's style? I'll go out on a limb here and say anyone who thought this wasn't a robbery would hold the same view.

Alright, sweet_scientist, you've promised and delivered. Plenty of material there and I largely, honestly appreciate it. Now, it's my duty to get you some material requested and I ask you for some time since this is a very serious and elevated debate. I need to do research on what was requested in the hope there is something that may open another view for you.

Yes, I agree that someone such as myself that didn't like Whitaker's style, would hold that the fight was not a robbery. But having said that, I scored with the late help of Pharaoh 115-113 for Whitaker and I find conceivable scores such as 115-115... So let me adjust to the information you provided me with and see what can I make of it for my case. Thank You so much.

[My dinner with Conteh]

:lol: Nice.

Did they put up any scorecards from the Whitaker-Chavez fight, or were they merely investigating the possibility of a King-Suliaman fix?



Investigating. Boxing Illustrated put up cards I think (I have both issues- and the 'sweet pea' shafted one). :good

[sweet_scientist]

Alright, sweet_scientist, you've promised and delivered. Plenty of material there and I largely, honestly appreciate it. Now, it's my duty to get you some material requested and I ask you for some time since this is a very serious and elevated debate. I need to do research on what was requested in the hope there is something that may open another view for you.

Yes, I agree that someone such as myself that didn't like Whitaker's style, would hold that the fight was not a robbery. But having said that, I scored with the late help of Pharaoh 115-113 for Whitaker and I find conceivable scores such as 115-115... So let me adjust to the information you provided me with and see what can I make of it for my case. Thank You so much.
Cheers D. Are you by any chance Mexican or Latino? I'd like to hear how the fight was received in Mexico and the Latin world, I dare say your best bet for finding material which thought the decision was fair would be in that quarter. Would be a good place to start investigating if you could :good

[sweet_scientist]

Investigating. Boxing Illustrated put up cards I think (I have both issues- and the 'sweet pea' shafted one). :good

Good work, will be interested to hear what you can dig up:good

[divac]

It was a very uninteresting fight, much in contrast to JCC's other fights, and I personally don't like to see Pernell's negative fighting quite frankly.

You hit upon a very interesting point that I feel that along with the biased media portrayal of the fight, convinced the fans watching on TV what they were hearing.

I think alot of people were expecting more from JC Chavez, and its if like it is punishment that he did'nt perform up to the standards he had set in previous fights that he was judged upon.

I frequently here about Pernell Whitaker making JC Chavez' offense ineffective.
I've always countered that except for two rounds in that fight, Chavez did the same to Whitaker's offense.
.....but if falls on deaf ears in forums like these where often times people have made up their minds without even seeing and scoring the fight for themselves.

The way I see it, Pernell Whitaker was'nt judged by the media on how well he did offensively.
For them all they cared to see was that Chavez' usually destructive offense had been neutralized by a fighter that played great defense, and knew how to stall the offensive proceedings of a fight (in other words Pernell sure knows how to literally put everyone to sleep.)

Its as if only JC Chavez had the burden of putting up an effective offense, and Pernell Whitaker was'nt being judged on that criteria.

Pernell Whitaker made alot of those rounds non-eventful. History shows us that those types of rounds are typically judged and given to the aggressor coming foward who is trying to make the fight happen.
Why would that criteria have to change for Pernell Whitaker??

.....and remember gentleman. I know that many dont take the time and score a fight round by round.
....but thats how a fight is supposed to be scored, and its how the three judges in this fight scored the fight and came to the final verdict of a draw.

115-113 115-115 and 115-115
Those are the scores of the official judges. I dont think its any coincidence that the three judges were on the same page watching a close fight.

The only thing out of order would have been for Al Bernstein to have broadcast that fight live and came up with a 10-2 score in favor of Whitaker!:lol:

[divac]

Btw, digging up material from Mexico from as far back as when this fight took place is impossible.
I've tried it before and could'nt even come up with a single article.


From what I can remember reading LA OPINION, as spanish reading newspaper who does alot of daily boxing coverage.
They did alot of their focus on Chavez and his inability to hunt down and hurt Whitaker as he had done to so many others.
Most of these spanish reading papers back in the day, told the story of controversy and people up at arms with the decision, but they fell short on calling the verdict a robbery for themselves.
I dont know why that is. It could be either one of two things imo.
One, they are latino based writers and had a bias for Chavez, or two there was'nt any bias, but were afraid with so many at arms with the decision, to say that it was'nt.
.....so alot of these Latino writers stayed neutral and did'nt say robbery either way.
One thing that I've noticed in this thread and in others where Scientist puts out these scores from sports writerrs......most of the Latino names that Scientist has posted with scores have it of the 115-113 variety.
.....and you've got to remember that Scientist is getting these scores from Magazines like Bert Sugars where he's trying to paint a portrayal of a shameless robbery.
Bert Sugar could have quoted 20 or 30 Latino writers and only used those scores that benefited his argument in his article.
....I would have to think that there were Latino writers who saw the draw justified, or who even saw it 115-113 the other way, but we just were'nt prevy to read them in these English speaking American magazines!

[My dinner with Conteh]

British Boxing News had Whitaker ahead

Boxing Monthly had Whitaker ahead

ITV, who broadcast it in UK, had Whitaker winning by three rounds. In the studio Lennox Lewis and Barry McGuigan had Whitaker winning (Lewis by four, Barry buy just one)

[sweet_scientist]

Btw, digging up material from Mexico from as far back as when this fight took place is impossible.
I've tried it before and could'nt even come up with a single article.


From what I can remember reading LA OPINION, as spanish reading newspaper who does alot of daily boxing coverage.
They did alot of their focus on Chavez and his inability to hunt down and hurt Whitaker as he had done to so many others.
Most of these spanish reading papers back in the day, told the story of controversy and people up at arms with the decision, but they fell short on calling the verdict a robbery for themselves.
I dont know why that is. It could be either one of two things imo.
One, they are latino based writers and had a bias for Chavez, or two there was'nt any bias, but were afraid with so many at arms with the decision, to say that it was'nt.
.....so alot of these Latino writers stayed neutral and did'nt say robbery either way.
One thing that I've noticed in this thread and in others where Scientist puts out these scores from sports writerrs......most of the Latino names that Scientist has posted with scores have it of the 115-113 variety.
.....and you've got to remember that Scientist is getting these scores from Magazines like Bert Sugars where he's trying to paint a portrayal of a shameless robbery.
Bert Sugar could have quoted 20 or 30 Latino writers and only used those scores that benefited his argument in his article.
....I would have to think that there were Latino writers who saw the draw justified, or who even saw it 115-113 the other way, but we just were'nt prevy to read them in these English speaking American magazines!

Most of the scorecards produced from Latino writers were sourced from Ring Magazine, not Bert Sugar's Boxing Illustrated. But then again, Ring Magazine had the fight scored 117-111 for Whitaker so they were probably more biased than Bert himself :lol:

In all seriousness, I think the ball is in the court of people who thought Chavez could have earned a draw (or won) to produce some material from expert writers to back this up, however hard this might be. If the publications are worth their salt they should still be able to be dredged up.

Having EVERY ready to hand source proclaim Whitaker the winner is too heavy a sway to be put down just to bias imo. Provide some reports which say Chavez doesn't receive a gift or STFU.

[sweet_scientist]

You hit upon a very interesting point that I feel that along with the biased media portrayal of the fight, convinced the fans watching on TV what they were hearing.

I think alot of people were expecting more from JC Chavez, and its if like it is punishment that he did'nt perform up to the standards he had set in previous fights that he was judged upon.

I frequently here about Pernell Whitaker making JC Chavez' offense ineffective.
I've always countered that except for two rounds in that fight, Chavez did the same to Whitaker's offense.
.....but if falls on deaf ears in forums like these where often times people have made up their minds without even seeing and scoring the fight for themselves.

The way I see it, Pernell Whitaker was'nt judged by the media on how well he did offensively.
For them all they cared to see was that Chavez' usually destructive offense had been neutralized by a fighter that played great defense, and knew how to stall the offensive proceedings of a fight (in other words Pernell sure knows how to literally put everyone to sleep.)

Its as if only JC Chavez had the burden of putting up an effective offense, and Pernell Whitaker was'nt being judged on that criteria.

Pernell Whitaker made alot of those rounds non-eventful. History shows us that those types of rounds are typically judged and given to the aggressor coming foward who is trying to make the fight happen.
Why would that criteria have to change for Pernell Whitaker??

.....and remember gentleman. I know that many dont take the time and score a fight round by round.
....but thats how a fight is supposed to be scored, and its how the three judges in this fight scored the fight and came to the final verdict of a draw.

115-113 115-115 and 115-115
Those are the scores of the official judges. I dont think its any coincidence that the three judges were on the same page watching a close fight.

The only thing out of order would have been for Al Bernstein to have broadcast that fight live and came up with a 10-2 score in favor of Whitaker!:lol:

The irony here is that you are saying the American media are biased and then go on to laud the boxing judges for giving even rounds to Chavez because of their bias.

[Dorfmeister]

Cheers D. Are you by any chance Mexican or Latino? I'd like to hear how the fight was received in Mexico and the Latin world, I dare say your best bet for finding material which thought the decision was fair would be in that quarter. Would be a good place to start investigating if you could :good

Cheers, sweet_scientist. I am not Mexican but I guess I am Latino and from Europe. Yes, I promise to give you an update on that, I'll try to do my best. For now, here is my latest scores and stats about the telecast and what I made of it: I won't score jabs for JCC cause that was not his approach against the southpaw so it's just effective jabs for Whitaker ( not range finders) and total punches/connects from both( not counting with Whitaker's jabs) :

Round 1 : Whitaker Jabs: 11
JCC Connects: 12 plus 4 jabs
Whitaker connects: 4
1st Whitaker round - 10-9

Round 2: Whitaker Jabs: 14
JCC Connects: 25
Whitaker connects: 12
1st JCC round - score 19-19

Round 3: Whitaker Jabs: 20
JCC Connects: 13 plus 5 jabs
Whitaker Connects: 8
2nd Whitaker round - score 29-28

Round 4: Whitaker Jabs: 7
JCC Connects: 14 plus 3 jabs
Whitaker Connects: 13
3rd Whitaker round - score 39-37

Round 5: Whitaker Jabs: 12
JCC Connects: 21 plus 3 jabs
Whitaker Connects: 13
2nd Chavez round - score 48-47

Round 6: Whitaker Jabs: 10
JCC Connects: 10 plus 3 jabs
Whitaker Connects: 8
3rd Chavez round - score 57-57 all even at mid-stage

Round 7: Whitaker Jabs: 10
JCC Connects: 10 plus 2 jabs
Whitaker Connects: 14
4th round Whitaker - score 67-66

Round 8: Whitaker Jabs: 7
JCC Connects: 13
Whitaker Connects: 24
5th round Whitaker - score 77-75

Round 9: Whitaker Jabs: 12
JCC Connects: 22
Whitaker Connects: 9
4th round Chavez - score 86-85

Round 10: Whitaker Jabs: 12
JCC Connects: 8
Whitaker Connects: 8
6th round Whitaker - score 96-94

Round 11: Whitaker Jabs: 6
JCC Connects: 10 plus 2 jabs
Whitaker Connects - 11
7th round Whitaker - score 106-103

Round 12: Whitaker Jabs: 2
JCC Connects: 18
Whitaker Connects: 10
5th round Chavez - Final Score 115-113 for Whitaker

[sweet_scientist]

Cheers, sweet_scientist. I am not Mexican but I guess I am Latino and from Europe. Yes, I promise to give you an update on that, I'll try to do my best. For now, here is my latest scores and stats about the telecast and what I made of it: I won't score jabs for JCC cause that was not his approach against the southpaw so it's just effective jabs for Whitaker ( not range finders) and total punches/connects from both( not counting with Whitaker's jabs) :

Round 1 : Whitaker Jabs: 11
JCC Connects: 12 plus 4 jabs
Whitaker connects: 4
1st Whitaker round - 10-9

Round 2: Whitaker Jabs: 14
JCC Connects: 25
Whitaker connects: 12
1st JCC round - score 19-19

Round 3: Whitaker Jabs: 20
JCC Connects: 13 plus 5 jabs
Whitaker Connects: 8
2nd Whitaker round - score 29-28

Round 4: Whitaker Jabs: 7
JCC Connects: 14 plus 3 jabs
Whitaker Connects: 13
3rd Whitaker round - score 39-37

Round 5: Whitaker Jabs: 12
JCC Connects: 21 plus 3 jabs
Whitaker Connects: 13
2nd Chavez round - score 48-47

Round 6: Whitaker Jabs: 10
JCC Connects: 10 plus 3 jabs
Whitaker Connects: 8
3rd Chavez round - score 57-57 all even at mid-stage

Round 7: Whitaker Jabs: 10
JCC Connects: 10 plus 2 jabs
Whitaker Connects: 14
4th round Whitaker - score 67-66

Round 8: Whitaker Jabs: 7
JCC Connects: 13
Whitaker Connects: 24
5th round Whitaker - score 77-75

Round 9: Whitaker Jabs: 12
JCC Connects: 22
Whitaker Connects: 9
4th round Chavez - score 86-85

Round 10: Whitaker Jabs: 12
JCC Connects: 8
Whitaker Connects: 8
6th round Whitaker - score 96-94

Round 11: Whitaker Jabs: 6
JCC Connects: 10 plus 2 jabs
Whitaker Connects - 11
7th round Whitaker - score 106-103

Round 12: Whitaker Jabs: 2
JCC Connects: 18
Whitaker Connects: 10
5th round Chavez - Final Score 115-113 for Whitaker

These stats are from your personal perception of the fight I take it D?

That's fair enough.

Look, I think 7-5 is too close, but not a rediculous score. I think anything within the 10-2 to 7-5 range is contestable given the close nature of quite a few of the rounds and the wide interpretation that can be given to the scoring criteria, but anything outside that gets rediculous.

I have scored the fight many times, bringing up an 9-3 or 8-4 card for Pea on just about every occasion. I think that's fairly reasonable, though I admit I'm a Whitaker fan and it might be going a tad far to score it 9-3. I think the general consensus is a 3 to 4 point margin for Whitaker. I think that's very reasonable.

[anut]

i scored it 117 to 112

[anut]

It wasnt as bad as Whitaker-DLH.

TONEY VS TIBERI VERY BAD DEC

[jedijojo]

Chavez winning rounds 1 and 5. Whitaker winning the rest.

Is it defendable? Discuss :D









































Sorry for the troll....but hey, it's the general forum :good

I gave Chavez round 1 and 2. Thats it.

[divac]

The irony here is that you are saying the American media are biased and then go on to laud the boxing judges for giving even rounds to Chavez because of their bias.

Nonsense Scientist!

When there is a round that is pretty close punchwise in meaningful connects, aggression is one of the criteria that a judge looks for in awarding a round.

Lets see the judge thinks, should I really be giving this very close round to the fighters who is going out of his way to avoid exchanges..

Dont pretend that does'nt exist in boxing, you know damn well that more often that not the aggressor is going to get awarded in such round......
....but God help boxing, that should'nt be happening in a Pernell Whitaker fight!!!:roll:

[sweet_scientist]

Nonsense Scientist!

When there is a round that is pretty close punchwise in meaningful connects, aggression is one of the criteria that a judge looks for in awarding a round.

Lets see the judge thinks, should I really be giving this very close round to the fighters who is going out of his way to avoid exchanges..

Dont pretend that does'nt exist in boxing, you know damn well that more often that not the aggressor is going to get awarded in such round......
....but God help boxing, that should'nt be happening in a Pernell Whitaker fight!!!:roll:

Agression is NOT a criterion of boxing. EFFECTIVE agression is. Chavez was, quite simply, not an effective aggressor in this fight. He spent more time on the ropes than Whitaker did and couldn't cut the ring off to save his life. The boxing world got the point, two judges didn't!

[divac]

Agression is NOT a criterion of boxing. EFFECTIVE agression is. Chavez was, quite simply, not an effective aggressor in this fight. He spent more time on the ropes than Whitaker did and couldn't cut the ring off to save his life. The boxing world got the point, two judges didn't!

Do you not understand reading comprehension???

In a round where neither the fighter coming foward or the fighter fighting on the backfoot, when neither are quite effective, who do you think a judge will side with???

Its simple Scientist, the judges gave Chavez enough rounds to get a draw, because in many of the rounds that you would point to Chavez being ineffective, Pernell Whitaker was ineffective as well!

I pointed it out earlier that people as yourself were judging Chavez on a harsher offensive criteria than Whitaker.
If you say Chavez was'nt being effective in his aggression, judge Pernell Whitaker by the same criteria, and do so by judging each and every damn round individually!


YES YES YES YES, I know that there were two rounds in that fight where Pernell Whitaker laid some hurt to JC Chavez.......
.....but I got news for you Scientist.....a judge still has to turn in 10 other scorecards at the end of the 10 other rounds!

[sweet_scientist]

Do you not understand reading comprehension???

In a round where neither the fighter coming foward or the fighter fighting on the backfoot, when neither are quite effective, who do you think a judge will side with???

Its simple Scientist, the judges gave Chavez enough rounds to get a draw, because in many of the rounds that you would point to Chavez being ineffective, Pernell Whitaker was ineffective as well!

I pointed it out earlier that people as yourself were judging Chavez on a harsher offensive criteria than Mayweather.
If you say Chavez was'nt being effective in his aggression, judge Pernell Whitaker by the same criteria, and do so by judging each and every damn round individually!


YES YES YES YES, I know that there were two rounds in that fight where Pernell Whitaker laid some hur to JC Chavez.......
.....but I got news for you Scientist.....a judge still has to turn in 10 other scorecards at the end of the 10 other rounds!

If neither fighter is being effective then the round should be called even. There's no reason other than bias to give it to a fighter just becuase he was on the front foot.

I say that however, so long as the fighter on the backfoot is trying to fight back and isn't simply running away ala Lou Bizarro against Duran and DLH in the last couple of rounds against Tito. That's not boxing.

What Whitaker did though is box for 12 rounds. He didn't run around the ring not throwing punches. He threw more punches than Chavez in just about every round. He was the more active fighter in the fight, no question about that.

[divac]

If neither fighter is being effective then the round should be called even. There's no reason other than bias to give it to a fighter just becuase he was on the front foot.

I say that however, so long as the fighter on the backfoot is trying to fight back and isn't simply running away ala Lou Bizarro against Duran and DLH in the last couple of rounds against Tito. That's not boxing.

What Whitaker did though is box for 12 rounds. He didn't run around the ring not throwing punches. He threw more punches than Chavez in just about every round. He was the more active fighter in the fight, no question about that.

In a Pernell Whitaker fantasy world you would score such rounds even.
.....this however is professional boxing (not amatuer, different scoring criteria)

Talk about Whitaker being active, how effective does one consider this activity when for much of the fight, his punch output came as he was moving his legs backward.....here's a fighter who is simultaneously punching and backpedaling all at the same time.....figure out how effective those punches could be!:roll:
....talk about effectiveness, apply that criteria to Pernell's punchoutput as well!

Sorry friend, but you and I both know that a judge more often than not is going to award the aggressor in the type of round you describe with little effective scoring output by both fighters......to deny that is to see it soley by a Whitaker's fan perspective!




Both fighters land an equal amount of effective punches in a round.
One did his scoring by being the clear aggressor, and the other by backpedalling.
.....while there was lull in the punching output, the aggressor vehemently chased, while the backpedaler vehemently ran away and deliberately avoided having to exchange.

In my view, the aggressor in this case wants to keep the punching exchanges going throughout the round, and the runner clearly is trying to keep them to a minumum.

I'm sorry, but whether you like it or not, or whether its expressed clearly in the scoring criteria or not.
That round my friend is going to go to the aggressor 99 times out of 100!!
I can understand how or why a Pernell Whitaker fan would'nt like that to be so......but if you're truthful with yourself, you know thats the way professional judges look at it as well.

[My dinner with Conteh]

It has to be a bad decision when someone posts this:


i scored it 117 to 112



...and no one bothers to ask 'who to?'. :good

[Dorfmeister]

TONEY VS TIBERI VERY BAD DEC

Another Myth, the "controversy" James Toney vs Dave Tiberi... Do I need to do another scorecard round by round for that one and for Michael Spinks - Larry Holmes II too? Let's take all the spiders from the mind web and focus on the real problems in boxing here... But I won't start a thread with those subjects, you'll have to do it if you can be so kind.

Anyway, here is another view on Chavez vs Whitaker round by round and from Chavez fans POV: [Only registered and activated users can see links]
To sweet_scientist and from Wikipedia, I dare to quote and expect ESB moderators to open this exception given the circumstances upon which I would have no other alternative but to do this : "After the fight, most sports writers agreed that Whitaker was robbed of a victory in a bout in which he outboxed his opponent from beginning to end, but many saw it as bias due to Chávez's popularity and the expectation that he would knock out Whitaker in an all-out war. In any case, the draw became the first blemish on Chávez's record, as he had won all his precious fights.
Thank you everybody.

[Dorfmeister]

You hit upon a very interesting point that I feel that along with the biased media portrayal of the fight, convinced the fans watching on TV what they were hearing.


I frequently here about Pernell Whitaker making JC Chavez' offense ineffective.
I've always countered that except for two rounds in that fight, Chavez did the same to Whitaker's offense.
.....but if falls on deaf ears in forums like these where often times people have made up their minds without even seeing and scoring the fight for themselves.

For them all they cared to see was that Chavez' usually destructive offense had been neutralized by a fighter that played great defense, and knew how to stall the offensive proceedings of a fight (in other words Pernell sure knows how to literally put everyone to sleep.)

Its as if only JC Chavez had the burden of putting up an effective offense, and Pernell Whitaker was'nt being judged on that criteria.

Pernell Whitaker made alot of those rounds non-eventful. History shows us that those types of rounds are typically judged and given to the aggressor coming foward who is trying to make the fight happen.
Why would that criteria have to change for Pernell Whitaker??

115-113 115-115 and 115-115
Those are the scores of the official judges. I dont think its any coincidence that the three judges were on the same page watching a close fight.

The only thing out of order would have been for Al Bernstein to have broadcast that fight live and came up with a 10-2 score in favor of Whitaker

Yes, divac has mentioned points that cannot be contested: In the Live Telecast, Dr. Ferdie Pacheco often referred to Chavez in a "desperate" struggle to come back from behind in points to avoid the first loss on his unblemished record as soon as those 7th, 8th rounds finished ( the previous rounds referred as going back and forth but still, highlighting Pernell's defense and overlooking Chavez offense) and Whitaker as definitely winning on Ring Generalship, making Chavez fight his fight and even, pummeling on Chavez which, given the knowledge of both players is hardly the perfect portrait of what happened even in rounds 7 and 8... It's perfectly conceivable that Al Bernstein was scoring for what Chavez was not able to do than for what Pernell actually did on offense.

Yes, I state that Boxing Scores should be made not so much according to neutralization, defensive strategies and not on uneffective aggressiveness either, but with a clear emphasis on Clean Punching not definitely sticking a feather fisted right lead numerous times on your opponent as you are on the back foot, holding with the right arm and "scoring" with left body shots or turning your opponent opponent and pressing him against the ropes with your body weight to give the indication you are coming forward.
Still there is this perception like William Detloff puts it - "It was, for anyone who saw it, a complete victory for Whitaker against the man regarded generally as the best fighter on the planet. That the judges scored it a draw was an abomination but it wasn't the first time it had happened to Whitaker."
That was what transpired from HBO's post-fight analysis for the Hoya-Mayweather showdown which is recent and commonly known - there should be given more credit to who's looking to make the fight... Otherwise, all guys who were underdogs like Whitaker was against Chavez and make it a competitive bout, will be always on the edge of claiming unfairness if they don't win and that is non-sensical...

On Show time Telecast from the New York Times Archives :

Albert and his partners, Ferdie Pacheco and Bobby Czyz, should have been more indignant over the majority draw. This was major news. They criticized the decision, but did not delineate the cozy connection between Don King, the promoter behind Chavez, and Jose Sulaiman, the president of the World Boxing Council. But, then, Pacheco and Czyz are paid by King.
"It's not their job to be indignant," said Jay Larkin, SET's executive producer. "I don't give them access to speculate or editorialize.

Czyz was refreshingly smart and articulate, far better than HBO's George Foreman. In the 10th he said, "I wonder what the odds in Vegas were on a draw?" He claimed to lip-read Whitaker's post-fight worry -- "They didn't rob me, did they?"-- which could make him an expert witness at Ray Mercer's trial on charges of making a bribe offer during his fight with Jesse Ferguson. When the draw was announced, Albert said of Whitaker, "He can't believe it. And neither can I." Czyz's deft followup: "I can't believe it. But I can."


More on Whitaker by ESPN Sports and on what I said about not liking his style : [Only registered and activated users can see links]

[My dinner with Conteh]

Another Myth, the "controversy" James Toney vs Dave Tiberi... Do I need to do another scorecard round by round for that one and for Michael Spinks - Larry Holmes II too?


No. Stop overrating the impact of your posts. They're not that important.

[Dorfmeister]

No. Stop overrating the impact of your posts. They're not that important.

In that case, I thank you cause I have no problem with Chavez-Whitaker, Toney-Tiberi or Holmes-Spinks II and that spares me from the trouble... I don't know about the impact of my posts since they can only cause impact on someone else, but since you say they do and still they are not that important to the matter suggested by the thread starter ( which is not Toney vs Tiberi btw), I will stop immediately posting in this thread as you wish. Goodbye everybody.

[sweet_scientist]

In a Pernell Whitaker fantasy world you would score such rounds even.
.....this however is professional boxing (not amatuer, different scoring criteria)

Talk about Whitaker being active, how effective does one consider this activity when for much of the fight, his punch output came as he was moving his legs backward.....here's a fighter who is simultaneously punching and backpedaling all at the same time.....figure out how effective those punches could be!:roll:
....talk about effectiveness, apply that criteria to Pernell's punchoutput as well!

Sorry friend, but you and I both know that a judge more often than not is going to award the aggressor in the type of round you describe with little effective scoring output by both fighters......to deny that is to see it soley by a Whitaker's fan perspective!




Both fighters land an equal amount of effective punches in a round.
One did his scoring by being the clear aggressor, and the other by backpedalling.
.....while there was lull in the punching output, the aggressor vehemently chased, while the backpedaler vehemently ran away and deliberately avoided having to exchange.

In my view, the aggressor in this case wants to keep the punching exchanges going throughout the round, and the runner clearly is trying to keep them to a minumum.

I'm sorry, but whether you like it or not, or whether its expressed clearly in the scoring criteria or not.
That round my friend is going to go to the aggressor 99 times out of 100!!
I can understand how or why a Pernell Whitaker fan would'nt like that to be so......but if you're truthful with yourself, you know thats the way professional judges look at it as well.
IMO, the only basis for giving a fighter an otherwise even round if he is moving forward (but being ineffective in his agression) is on the basis of ring generalship. That's where the DLH-Tito / Bizarro-Duran rule should apply. If the other fighter is running and not boxing, as occured in the last rounds of DLH-Tito and all the rounds of Bizarro-Duran, then the one chasing clearly becomes the ring general and dictates the terms of the fight.

I don't think this should be the case in a general boxing match where a fighter sticks and moves. This is an integral part of the sport and a fighter should not be penalised for employing it. If boxing only favoured come forward fighters, fights would take place in phone booths and not rings. The ring is there to be used in the aim of boxing. That's what Whitaker did.

Am I alone in thinking this? Well, all the media would probably agree, but you have the conspiracy thing going, and I can't really disprove that. I think most fans would agree too, but you have the media brainwash conspiracy happening there too, and I can't really disprove that either.

[divac]

This would hold water if it were true. If neither were effective or doing anything, and Chavez was the aggressor, he would win the round. Unfortunately, that is not what happened at all, you are blatantly lying. The rounds Whitaker lost were the ones were he was either getting adjusted or seemingly coasting, so your theory holds true for those. The ones he won are the ones Chavez was coming forward getting tagged up and missing, which was a lot. He even had Chavez backing up and seemingly hurt in two of the rounds, something Chavez was never even closr to having Whitaker doing.

Without knowing you just made my point.

You just said it, and I've always pointed to the fact that two of the rounds in the fight were big enough for Whitaker that it instilled an imprint in a viewers mind.
.....an imprint that if you were not scoring the fight round by round as a judge scores it, it will have you believing that Pernell won the fight going away.

In so many of the rounds, Whitakers only punchoutput was as he was in full backpedal mode.
.....as I've said in a previous post, how does one rate that in terms of effectiveness?
If one would think it was effective, then you'd score the round for Whitaker, personally I dont rate it as effective at all.
I would rate Chavez foward aggression along with his body shot combinations (which many who scored for Whitaker overlooked) more effective than Whitakers punchoutput in backtrack mode.

You point to Chavez getting tagged up and missing.....I did'nt see an extroadinary amount of missing on Chavez" part, at least not any more than what Pernell Whitaker himself was missing.
That aspect of the fight is overlooked as well.....alot of folks would want to emphasize Pernell's extroardinary talent of making a fighter miss. That when Chavez did miss, it was overemphasized.
.....but when Whitaker was missing and not finding the mark, did Chavez get the same credit????
He did'nt because in most peoples view that is'nt a Chavez trademark, he's stereotyped as a brawler/punisher that when he does other good things that are more to the finesse side, its overlooked and non-credited.

You might not want to admit it Sweet Pea, but next time you watch the Chavez-Whitaker match, put away Whitaker's rose colored glasses away and look at it from Chavez' perspective as well.
Pay attention to Chavez' great defense as well, and credit him for it as you would have credited Pernell Whitaker.

Take the rose colored glasses off Pea and see the light!;)

[divac]

IMO, the only basis for giving a fighter an otherwise even round if he is moving forward (but being ineffective in his agression) is on the basis of ring generalship. That's where the DLH-Tito / Bizarro-Duran rule should apply. If the other fighter is running and not boxing, as occured in the last rounds of DLH-Tito and all the rounds of Bizarro-Duran, then the one chasing clearly becomes the ring general and dictates the terms of the fight.

I don't think this should be the case in a general boxing match where a fighter sticks and moves. This is an integral part of the sport and a fighter should not be penalised for employing it. If boxing only favoured come forward fighters, fights would take place in phone booths and not rings. The ring is there to be used in the aim of boxing. That's what Whitaker did.

Am I alone in thinking this? Well, all the media would probably agree, but you have the conspiracy thing going, and I can't really disprove that. I think most fans would agree too, but you have the media brainwash conspiracy happening there too, and I can't really disprove that either.

Scientist, I love to watch fighters use the ring and move around it as you have described......if he is manuevering the ring and enticing the other to throw punches while they are visibly looking to consistently counter them and counter them effectively, then I love watching that style.

Take for example what Juan Manuel Marquez did to Manny Pacquiao.
Juan Manuel controlled distance, he controlled space, and he was effectively not only looking to, but he was countering the pants off of Manny Pacquiao with meaningful hurtful shots.
While Marquez was countering Pacquiao, his feet were planted to the ground, thus there was force behind his punches that I would call effective.

Consistently, Pernell Whitaker was'nt punching with his feet planted to the ground.
.....and I'm not looking for Whitaker to plant his feet and stay in the pocket to continue to punch.
JMM certainly did'nt do that vs Pacquiao.

Marquez imo was effective because with his lateral movement, he would stop on a dime and let his fist fly with enough leverage behind his shots that would consistently drive Manny Pacquiao back and to the ropes.
The key word being consistent here. Whitaker did some of that, but he was neglecting to do it consistently on a round by round basis.
There were several rounds in Chavez-Whitaker where Whitaker failed to take pause for one second his backpedaling motions.
If you're constantly backpedaling and dont stop even for a second to get off a combination, it is'nt going to be very effective.

At least thats how I view what is effectiveness coming from a fighter who is fighting off the backfoot.
Juan Manuel Marquez is a fine example of a fighter who consistently is effective in his punch output fighting while moving back.
In most instances, a sure sign of a fighter being effective while not being the aggressor is that he will impede the foward aggression of the other fighter.
Whitaker did'nt do that consistently and round by round to Chavez as JMM did to Manny Pacquiao!

[sweet_scientist]

Scientist, I love to watch fighters use the ring and move around it as you have described......if he is manuevering the ring and enticing the other to throw punches while they are visibly looking to consistently counter them and counter them effectively, then I love watching that style.

Take for example what Juan Manuel Marquez did to Manny Pacquiao.
Juan Manuel controlled distance, he controlled space, and he was effectively not only looking to, but he was countering the pants off of Manny Pacquiao with meaningful hurtful shots.
While Marquez was countering Pacquiao, his feet were planted to the ground, thus there was force behind his punches that I would call effective.

Consistently, Pernell Whitaker was'nt punching with his feet planted to the ground.
.....and I'm not looking for Whitaker to plant his feet and stay in the pocket to continue to punch.
JMM certainly did'nt do that vs Pacquiao.

Marquez imo was effective because with his lateral movement, he would stop on a dime and let his fist fly with enough leverage behind his shots that would consistently drive Manny Pacquiao back and to the ropes.
The key word being consistent here. Whitaker did some of that, but he was neglecting to do it consistently on a round by round basis.
There were several rounds in Chavez-Whitaker where Whitaker failed to take pause for one second his backpedaling motions.
If you're constantly backpedaling and dont stop even for a second to get off a combination, it is'nt going to be very effective.

At least thats how I view what is effectiveness coming from a fighter who is fighting off the backfoot.
Juan Manuel Marquez is a fine example of a fighter who consistently is effective in his punch output fighting while moving back.
In most instances, a sure sign of a fighter being effective while not being the aggressor is that he will impede the foward aggression of the other fighter.
Whitaker did'nt do that consistently and round by round to Chavez as JMM did to Manny Pacquiao!

Vlade, what you fail to take account of is that Chavez (unlike Pac) had a rock chin and could take extraordinary punishment without moving back.

IMO there's no question Whitaker whacked Chavez better and more than what Marquez did to Pac. It's just that Chavez sucks up punishment much more.

Whitaker by the way, would nearly always be leaping forward when he was punching Chavez. It's just that he was intent to sting him and quickly get outside again, so I disagree with your claim that he was landing ineffective shots quite a lot of the time on Chavez.

Whitaker, from the 3rd round on, was landing the harder, cleaner shots. That was the story of the fight. That's what really made this Whtiaker's night. He worked Chavez over, and it wasn't just for two rounds. For two rounds he trounced him, for a good 6 or 7 more he merely got the better of him.

[divac]

Vlade, what you fail to take account of is that Chavez (unlike Pac) had a rock chin and could take extraordinary punishment without moving back.

IMO there's no question Whitaker whacked Chavez better and more than what Marquez did to Pac. It's just that Chavez sucks up punishment much more.

Whitaker by the way, would nearly always be leaping forward when he was punching Chavez. It's just that he was intent to sting him and quickly get outside again, so I disagree with your claim that he was landing ineffective shots quite a lot of the time on Chavez.

Whitaker, from the 3rd round on, was landing the harder, cleaner shots. That was the story of the fight. That's what really made this Whtiaker's night. He worked Chavez over, and it wasn't just for two rounds. For two rounds he trounced him, for a good 6 or 7 more he merely got the better of him.

We'll always disagree on that my friend.....for me for two rounds Whitaker dominated, and for four others, he did just enough clean and effective punches to merit the rounds.
Truthfully thats how I saw the fight!


.....and C'mon Scientist, Whitaker went complete rounds without so much as taking a foward step!
I would'nt be suprised if I reviewed the tape and see Whitaker off the ground as he threw out punches!:lol:

[Seamus]

I had it 6-5-1 Whitaker.


And for one of the few great fights I can say this about, I was there and close.

[divac]

I had it 6-5-1 Whitaker.


And for one of the few great fights I can say this about, I was there and close.

Hey Seamus, since you were there live. Did you ever think right after the fight when you were there, of the controversy that would ensue from the scores read????
The Sports Illustrated cover and everything......

My scorecard read a draw, and I would have never in a million years have guessed that this fight would be pointed too by the fans and media today as one of the worst robberies of all-time.

One thing is to think that Whitaker won, but to paint a picture that it was uncompetitive and say that its one of the worst robberies of all-time????:huh

It really does baffle me to this day how the media worked it up to get to this point!

[4Rounder]

Hey Seamus, since you were there live. Did you ever think right after the fight when you were there, of the controversy that would ensue from the scores read????
The Sports Illustrated cover and everything......

My scorecard read a draw, and I would have never in a million years have guessed that this fight would be pointed too by the fans and media today as one of the worst robberies of all-time.

One thing is to think that Whitaker won, but to paint a picture that it was uncompetitive and say that its one of the worst robberies of all-time????:huh

It really does baffle me to this day how the media worked it up to get to this point!
I was actually surprised that this fight was close when I first watched it. Kept hearing how Whitaker embarrased Chavez in the internet and even my father who watched it live when it happened said it may have been a win for Whitaker. So just like in the Chris John/Marquez fight, I went in with the impression I would be watching the wrong man get outclassed.

3 professional judges saw a close fight, and so did I and many as well. I would have abolutely no problem if people said that Whitaker took it 7-5 or 6-5-1. But to say it was an embarrassment and robbery? I find it a bit ridiculous.

I would post my scores if I still had them. Since it is actually a very uneventful fight I don't have an immediate desire to watch it again. I'll rather focus on the exciting match ups coming up. :good

[divac]

Just off topic here for a bit.....has anybody noticed, or know why is it that when you edit a post, at the very bottom in small print, it has last edited....and then it states a name other than your own.

Look at 4rounder right above me, it says last edited by flatlander.....:huh

[KO Boxing]

Wow. I suppose this proves the Theory of Relativity exists at the "opinion" level also. When I'm being GENEROUS to Chavez, looking for everything I can possibly score for him, I struggle to score it 116-112... Personally.

[4Rounder]

Just off topic here for a bit.....has anybody noticed, or know why is it that when you edit a post, at the very bottom in small print, it has last edited....and then it states a name other than your own.

Look at 4rounder right above me, it says last edited by flatlander.....:huh

Heh...

just barely noticing that. :lol:

probably some script bug.

[divac]

Heh...

just barely noticing that. :lol:

probably some script bug.

I've noticed it for some time now....I wonder why it has'nt been corrected by the powers that be, or like you said, it may be a script bug thats not worth the hassle correcting.

.......but what the hell does Flatlander have to do with you???:nut

[sues2nd]

Here is my round by round. I have posted this before asking the people who think Chavez won or that it was a draw to dispute it...but noone ever does. This was an EASY fight to score.

Anyway...here is my round by round.

Chavez - Whitaker

Round1

10-9 Chavez applies good pressure, keeping Pea for the most part hesitant to throw any type of combos. Both fighters feel each other out for the most part.

Round2

9-10 (19-19) Pea hit Chavez with a few clean power shots, keeps the jab in his face for the most part...Chavez content to come forward and swing sparingly, but for the most part missing.

Round3

9-10 (28-29) Whitaker lands at will, continuously beating Julio to the punch. Keeps the jab in Chavez's face, working exclusively off that. Sneaks in a few good body shots and power shots as well. Chavez fails to land anything clean all round.

Round4

9-10 (37-39) Again Whitaker beats Chavez to the punch, even switches to the aggessor for the first half of the round, before going back to backing up and boxing off his jab. Chavez lands one nice jab and one nice bodyshot. Sweet Pea even gets the better of him on the inside.

Round5

10-9 (47-48 ) Very good round for Chavez. Landed a couple good body shots and one great right hook on the inside. Pea came back in the last minute to make the round close.

Round6

9-10 (56-58 ) Missing from the video (sorry..posted another one that has it after the rest...). But Sweet Pea beating Chavez to the punch, Chavez coming forward, getting caught. Unintetional low blow by Pea...

Round7

9-10 (65-68 )BIG ROUND FOR WHITAKER. Sweet Pea looks confident, snapping the jab, landing combination after combination. Again switches to the aggressor for the second half of the round....continuously beating Chavez to the punch. Chavez looks VERY confused and frustrated.

Round8

9-10 (74-78 )Another great round for Whitaker. The fight toe to toe for the whole round and Whitaker STILL beats Chavez to the punch. Chavez looks tired. Whitaker lands in flurries throughout. Even backs Chavez up on more than a few occasions.

Round9

9-10 (83-88 )Chavez starts the round off well coming forward and landing a couple of good shots. Whitaker switches back to working off the jab and lands some great combinations as well as some great counter left hooks. Chavez sneaks in a good right toward the end, but is immediately countered with an even better one. They go toe to toe toward the very end of the round with Whitaker landing cleaner and more.

Round10

9-10 (92-98 ) Chavez rushes Whitaker right at the bell and lands, but again is countered with a flurry by Sweet Pea. More of the same. Whitaker beating Chavez to the punch. Even starting SNAP Chavez's head back with each jab landed.

Round11

9-10 (101-108 )More of the same. Whitaker landing more, cleaner and harder. Chavez unable to find Whitaker...again Chavez looks VERY frustrated.

Round12

10-9 (111-117) Chavez lands a few good shots and stalks Whitaker, obviously knowing he needed a KO. Whitaker content to do just enough to keep Chavez off of him.

So there you have it...111-117.

[divac]

Here is my round by round. I have posted this before asking the people who think Chavez won or that it was a draw to dispute it...but noone ever does. This was an EASY fight to score.

Anyway...here is my round by round.

Chavez - Whitaker

Round1

10-9 Chavez applies good pressure, keeping Pea for the most part hesitant to throw any type of combos. Both fighters feel each other out for the most part.

Round2

9-10 (19-19) Pea hit Chavez with a few clean power shots, keeps the jab in his face for the most part...Chavez content to come forward and swing sparingly, but for the most part missing.

Round3

9-10 (28-29) Whitaker lands at will, continuously beating Julio to the punch. Keeps the jab in Chavez's face, working exclusively off that. Sneaks in a few good body shots and power shots as well. Chavez fails to land anything clean all round.

Round4

9-10 (37-39) Again Whitaker beats Chavez to the punch, even switches to the aggessor for the first half of the round, before going back to backing up and boxing off his jab. Chavez lands one nice jab and one nice bodyshot. Sweet Pea even gets the better of him on the inside.

Round5

10-9 (47-48 ) Very good round for Chavez. Landed a couple good body shots and one great right hook on the inside. Pea came back in the last minute to make the round close.

Round6

9-10 (56-58 ) Missing from the video (sorry..posted another one that has it after the rest...). But Sweet Pea beating Chavez to the punch, Chavez coming forward, getting caught. Unintetional low blow by Pea...

Round7

9-10 (65-68 )BIG ROUND FOR WHITAKER. Sweet Pea looks confident, snapping the jab, landing combination after combination. Again switches to the aggressor for the second half of the round....continuously beating Chavez to the punch. Chavez looks VERY confused and frustrated.

Round8

9-10 (74-78 )Another great round for Whitaker. The fight toe to toe for the whole round and Whitaker STILL beats Chavez to the punch. Chavez looks tired. Whitaker lands in flurries throughout. Even backs Chavez up on more than a few occasions.

Round9

9-10 (83-88 )Chavez starts the round off well coming forward and landing a couple of good shots. Whitaker switches back to working off the jab and lands some great combinations as well as some great counter left hooks. Chavez sneaks in a good right toward the end, but is immediately countered with an even better one. They go toe to toe toward the very end of the round with Whitaker landing cleaner and more.

Round10

9-10 (92-98 ) Chavez rushes Whitaker right at the bell and lands, but again is countered with a flurry by Sweet Pea. More of the same. Whitaker beating Chavez to the punch. Even starting SNAP Chavez's head back with each jab landed.

Round11

9-10 (101-108 )More of the same. Whitaker landing more, cleaner and harder. Chavez unable to find Whitaker...again Chavez looks VERY frustrated.

Round12

10-9 (111-117) Chavez lands a few good shots and stalks Whitaker, obviously knowing he needed a KO. Whitaker content to do just enough to keep Chavez off of him.

So there you have it...111-117.

What the hell are you talking about?
Dorfmeister posted a nice round by round earlier in the thread....

....I've done so way in the past, and since I did'nt save my round by round analysis of the fight, it would mean I had to rewatch and take notes all over again.

Quite frankly in debating this fight, a round by round debate of it is uneccesary.....either you like Chavez' come foward aggression and take note and credit shots to the body.....or you take note and overcredit Pea's punching with his feet not firmly planted to the ground.
There is alot of running and alot of light punching on Pernell's part.

.....its how and why one credits those things that you come up with a conclusion on who won some of these closer rounds.

You have it 9-3 in favor of Whitaker, believe me a round by round debate of it is not going to change my mind or yours!


....btw Sues, I love you unbias depiction of round 6 "unintentional low blow by Whitaker":rofl :rofl :rofl
Whitaker threw two low blows in succesion.....one of the few times in the fight Whitaker actually had his feet firmly planted to the ground.
I dont think those low blows were coincidental!:yep

[sues2nd]

What the hell are you talking about?
Dorfmeister posted a nice round by round earlier in the thread....

....I've done so way in the past, and since I did'nt save my round by round analysis of the fight, it would mean I had to rewatch and take notes all over again.

Quite frankly in debating this fight, a round by round debate of it is uneccesary.....either you like Chavez' come foward aggression and take note and credit shots to the body.....or you take note and overcredit Pea's punching with his feet not firmly planted to the ground.
There is alot of running and alot of light punching on Pernell's part.

.....its how and why one credits those things that you come up with a conclusion on who won some of these closer rounds.

You have it 9-3 in favor of Whitaker, believe me a round by round debate of it is not going to change my mind or yours!


....btw Sues, I love you unbias depiction of round 6 "unintentional low blow by Whitaker":rofl :rofl :rofl
Whitaker threw two low blows in succesion.....one of the few times in the fight Whitaker actually had his feet firmly planted to the ground.
I dont think those low blows were coincidental!:yep

And I love your unbiased outlook at how to score a fight.

You dont score a round or fight soley on body shots and aggression (especially when that aggression is in no way effective). Pea was defensively better, he landed the cleaner shots throughout, he dictated the pace and made that fight HIS FIGHT...Chavez came forward, got hit over and over, occasionally landed a good shot and was beaten to the punch throughout. But you want us to look at the BODY PUNCHING!?!?!?!?

:lol:

Correctly scored (not what type of style you prefer), this fight was largely in favor of Pernell.

(and as I have said beforehand, I under normal circumstances think your a sound poster....just NOT HERE...definately not here.)

[divac]

And I love your unbiased outlook at how to score a fight.

You dont score a round or fight soley on body shots and aggression (especially when that aggression is in no way effective). Pea was defensively better, he landed the cleaner shots throughout, he dictated the pace and made that fight HIS FIGHT...Chavez came forward, got hit over and over, occasionally landed a good shot and was beaten to the punch throughout. But you want us to look at the BODY PUNCHING!?!?!?!?

:lol:

Correctly scored (not what type of style you prefer), this fight was largely in favor of Pernell.

(and as I have said beforehand, I under normal circumstances think your a sound poster....just NOT HERE...definately not here.)

Thats great Sues, I've let it be known of my criteria of scoring the fight.

My point about Chavez' body punching is to point out that alot of people dont value shots to the body and ignore them when it comes to actually giving scoring credit to them.
Its not the sole reason to credit Chavez for winning a round, I never said it was. Only one of the reasons.

You dont agree with it, fine.
I dont agree with yours. I think you overcredit Whitaker for some of the things he did in the fight, and undercredit Chavez.

I feel the same way about your scoring of the fight that you do about my scoring.

You can criticize or ridicule my scoring of the fight all you want, but there were three official professional judges who agreed with me.
The three judges that count!:deal :yep

[sweet_scientist]

Where did you hear or read of Al Bernstein having it that wide.

I dont always agree with Bernstein, but I've always found him to be pretty honest in his assesments.

Poor Al must have had on off night that night, or must have seen the fight and judged it under the influence!:D

Beside his scorecard, I'd love to read more on Bernsteins take on the fight!

Here's a little snippet of Bernstein's thoughts after watching the fight.

izuwXikqXl8

[ripcity]

10-2 or 118-110 Whitaker is a perfectly reasonable score.

[Maelstrom]

Draw for me. The fight wasn't even that good anyways.:rofl

[Maelstrom]

Chavez was always a poor loser. Remember him flipping out on Merchant after his second fight with OscarLarry wore his ass out.

"why did you QUIT??"

"Yeah but you QUIT"

"somebody ask him why he QUIT"

:lol: