Whitaker vs Ramirez I

[TomaTos]

Watching the fight for the first time on ESPN classic..., one of the worse robberie I have ever seen...

Did Whitaker lose a fight before the trinidad one ? Because it seem to me that he should have retired undefeated after the DLH one.

[achillesthegreat]

You could argue he was undefeated until Tito. Personally I think DLH was 50-50 and was close either way. He had another clsoe one with Rivera but fought him again. Shit was going down with Hurtado but salvaged it.

He DID NOT lose or draw to Ramirez and Chavez.

Something about Pea just irked some judges the wrong way. Though Pea was quite delusional in what he thought went down i.e. I think he called his DLH fight 10-2 for him.

[errsta]

Ramirez won that fight fair and round

[Robbi]

You could argue he was undefeated until Tito. Personally I think DLH was 50-50 and was close either way. He had another clsoe one with Rivera but fought him again. Shit was going down with Hurtado but salvaged it.

He DID NOT lose or draw to Ramirez and Chavez.

Something about Pea just irked some judges the wrong way. Though Pea was quite delusional in what he thought went down i.e. I think he called his DLH fight 10-2 for him.

10-2. I think not. I agree the Ramirez decision was terrible, and so was the Chavez one. The Rivera I fight could have went either way, and his fight with De La Hoya was very close. I don't have a problem when people say they felt Whitaker beat De La Hoya, but when they use the word "robbery" its just laughable and ridiculous.

Punch stats don't score fights, three judges do with the naked eye.

[Robbi]

Ramirez won that fight fair and round


:patsch Your at the wind up.

[RAMPAGE0017]

10-2. I think not. I agree the Ramirez decision was terrible, and so was the Chavez one. The Rivera I fight could have went either way, and his fight with De La Hoya was very close. I don't have a problem when people say they felt Whitaker beat De La Hoya, but when they use the word "robbery" its just laughable and ridiculous.

Punch stats don't score fights, three judges do with the naked eye.


Yeah, people throw the word " robbery " around awfully loosely in regards to that fight. It was a VERY close fight that could've gone either way, and I too don't have a problem with those who feel Sweet Pea won, but at the same time I don't feel that De La Hoya got an undeserved decision.

[brooklyn1550]

I honestly believe Pernell should have retired with a 44-1 or a 43-2 record...I had him soundly beating Ramirez during the 1st fight, I had win soundly winning the Chavez fight, I had him winning a CLOSE decision against De La Hoya that could have easily gone to Oscar (as it did), and he had that NC in which he originally won against Pestriaev.

The Ramirez and Chavez fights really upset me. He put on great performances and while he should have won the lightweight title and while he should have been the 1st guy to hand JCC a loss, he was robbed.

[Sonny Carson]

I had Whitaker beating De La Hoya. De La Hoya shouldn't have went southpaw against Whitaker that was very stupid.

[Robbi]

I honestly believe Pernell should have retired with a 44-1 or a 43-2 record...I had him soundly beating Ramirez during the 1st fight, I had win soundly winning the Chavez fight, I had him winning a CLOSE decision against De La Hoya that could have easily gone to Oscar (as it did), and he had that NC in which he originally won against Pestriaev.

The Ramirez and Chavez fights really upset me. He put on great performances and while he should have won the lightweight title and while he should have been the 1st guy to hand JCC a loss, he was robbed.

Ramirez and Chavez were both Mexican fighters, and with both bouts being WBC title fights. The WBC and Sulaiman are from Mexico, and Its been well known King and Sulaiman are both close friends. Those two were involved in Chavez v Whitaker.

For some strange reason, I always forget Whitaker fought Trinidad. Its like most people forgetting Holyfield's well past prime fights against Ruiz, Toney, and Donald, etc. I even sometimes forget Duran and Leonard had a 3rd fight.

[Robbi]

Ramirez won easy!!!!! stop the crying.

:bolt

[brooklyn1550]

Ramirez won easy!!!!! stop the crying.

:roll:

[Olander]

Whitaker got jobbed on the first Ramirez fight. I find it quite odd that the scorecards DISAPPEARED immediately after the fight.

[sweet_scientist]

Why is it that guys who always whine:| about Pea getting robbed never bother to bring up the Pea/Rivera fight:roll:

Because Whitaker arguably lost the Rivera fight by 2 points, he arguably won the Ramirez and Chavez fight by 7 or 8 points. Hardly in the same ball park of close decisions.

[sues2nd]

Because Whitaker arguably lost the Rivera fight by 2 points, he arguably won the Ramirez and Chavez fight by 7 or 8 points. Hardly in the same ball park of close decisions.

:good

[sweet_scientist]

The keyword for the outcome of all these fights is arguably my friend.:good

And since I don't expect anyone with a Pea influenced login and avatar to be very objective about this subjec we'll politely end this right here.:deal

My lack of objectivity has nothing to do with it.

Have you EVER seen a media publication have the Rivera fight by more than 2 points for Rivera?

Have you EVER seen a media publication even suggest that Chavez or Ramirez deserved a draw?

Ring Magazine had Pea-Chavez 117-111, and from what I've come to understand, they don't have a Pea influenced login and avatar at ESB :lol:

[sues2nd]

The keyword for the outcome of all these fights is arguably my friend.:good

And since I don't expect anyone with a Pea influenced login and avatar to be very objective about this subjec we'll politely end this right here.:deal

Ok, well then let me chime in.

The Rivera fight was a close fight. THE closest fight of Pea's career at that point. BUT, a fight that most feel he won.

What great doesnt have a debatable decision?

Mayweather has the Castillo fight.
Leonard has the Hagler fight.
DLH has a bunch of em.

You know I could keep going. It was a close fight, but most people still feel it was a win for Whitaker. Its not like you COULDNT make an arguement for Pea in this one. Its pretty easy actually, a little harder to make one for Rivera.

Now, if you look at the Chavez fight. That IS NOT a debatable subject. Chavez got outboxed. Outmuscled. Outworked. And still remarkably got the draw....it was disgusting.

The only person who would think differently is a blind Chavez fan (HI GUERRERO :hi: ). There is NO WAY Chavez won more than three rounds...four if you are being OVERLY generous....

And the Ramirez fight (what this post was supposed to be about)? That was a shutout win for Whitaker. Ramirez barely won a round (it would be hard to see him get two....). Sweet Pea beat his ass. Other than RJJ in the Olympics, this is the worst robbery I have seen (and Ive been watching boxing for damn near 25 years)...and I am not the only one who thinks so.

The DLH fight, thats a whole other situation. I feel, as again, most do that it was a close but CLEAR win for Sweet Pea (there have been numerous polls done on this subject on this site, never has it not been landslide for a Whitaker UD). The only arguement I have heard for DLH is that he outworked Whitaker...which isnt the case. Whitaker threw more punches, landed more punches and even dropped Oscar (2 point round). If you score a fight how its supposed to be scored (Defense, Clean Punching, Effective Aggression & Ring Generalship), you HAVE to give the fight to Pernell. Again, close, but CLEAR.

So now, let me please hear what you think about this???

:good

[4Rounder]

People People, open your eyes, Whitaker/Chavez was a clear Draw!!!

all you got is "arguably" to state nonsense.

[sues2nd]

People People, open your eyes, Whitaker/Chavez was a clear Draw!!!

all you got is "arguably" to state nonsense.

^^^ Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you someone who has never seen the DAMN FIGHT!!!!

[sweet_scientist]

People People, open your eyes, Whitaker/Chavez was a clear Draw!!!

all you got is "arguably" to state nonsense.

Bill Lyon, Philadelphia Inquirer: 117-115 Whitaker


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


Tim Kawakami, Los Angeles Times: 115-113 Whitaker


Juan Carlos Gutierrez, Excelsior: 115-114 Whitaker


Bernard Fernandez, Philadelphia Daily News: 116-112 Whitaker


Jon Saraceno, USA Today: 116-112 Whitaker


Carlos Rivero, Uno Mas Uno: 116-113 Whitaker


Joe Gergen, Newsday: 116-112 Whitaker


Bill Nack, Sports Illustrated: 117-111 Whitaker


Michael Wilbon, The Washington Post: 115-113 Whitaker


Steve Farhood, The Ring: 117-111 Whitaker


Ed Shyuler, The Associated Press: 116-112 Whitaker


Carlos Hernandez, La Journada: 116-114 Whitaker


Bert Sugar, Boxing Illustrated: 116-112 Whitaker

[sweet_scientist]

Bill Lyon, Philadelphia Inquirer: 117-115 Whitaker


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


Tim Kawakami, Los Angeles Times: 115-113 Whitaker


Juan Carlos Gutierrez, Excelsior: 115-114 Whitaker


Bernard Fernandez, Philadelphia Daily News: 116-112 Whitaker


Jon Saraceno, USA Today: 116-112 Whitaker


Carlos Rivero, Uno Mas Uno: 116-113 Whitaker


Joe Gergen, Newsday: 116-112 Whitaker


Bill Nack, Sports Illustrated: 117-111 Whitaker


Michael Wilbon, The Washington Post: 115-113 Whitaker


Steve Farhood, The Ring: 117-111 Whitaker


Ed Shyuler, The Associated Press: 116-112 Whitaker


Carlos Hernandez, La Journada: 116-114 Whitaker


Bert Sugar, Boxing Illustrated: 116-112 Whitaker


As you can see, its arguable that the Chavez fight was close. NO ONE argues that it was a draw or that Chavez won.:good

[divac]

Why is it that guys who always whine:| about Pea getting robbed never bother to bring up the Pea/Rivera fight:roll:

I'm in aggreance.

You get a few diehard Sweet Pea fans around here that claim Pernell should have been undefeated heading into the Trinidad fight.....
....how convenient of them to forget the Rivera fight in which I feel Rivera clearly outboxed Pernell.

The thing about the Rivera fight is that not only was Pernell technically outboxed, but Rivera was also the aggressor who landed the cleaner harder shots.

To sum it up, Pernell left the door open by being to defensive which usually translates to an unmeaningful offense in his fights with Chavez, DLH and even Ramirez (although I clearly had Pernell beating Ramirez)

Rivera on the other hand outboxed and tatood Pernell with meaningful accurate punches...all this while being the aggressor.

Imo the Rivera fight was just as big a robbery that the Ramirez fight was for Whitaker.



People dont wonder why Pernell Whitaker came out on the short end of some of these decisions. The answer is simple. Pea did't put up a significant offense in a sport where offense counts the most!:hey :deal

Btw, Pernell Whitaker would have us believe that up to his last fight where he quit due to an injury, he was undefeated.......

Pernell Whitaker to Larry Merchant after his loss to Trinidad....
"They did it to me again Larry!":lol: :lol: :lol:

[jyuza]

Whitaker got robbed many times in his career and I felt like he won the Ramirez fight as well as the Chavez fight.

His first CLEAR loss was against Trinidad and he was way past it, we all know that.

[sweet_scientist]

I'm in aggreance.

You get a few diehard Sweet Pea fans around here that claim Pernell should have been undefeated heading into the Trinidad fight.....
....how convenient of them to forget the Rivera fight in which I feel Rivera clearly outboxed Pernell.

The thing about the Rivera fight is that not only was Pernell technically outboxed, but Rivera was also the aggressor who landed the cleaner harder shots.

To sum it up, Pernell left the door open by being to defensive which usually translates to an unmeaningful offense in his fights with Chavez, DLH and even Ramirez (although I clearly had Pernell beating Ramirez)

Rivera on the other hand outboxed and tatood Pernell with meaningful accurate punches...all this while being the aggressor.

Imo the Rivera fight was just as big a robbery that the Ramirez fight was for Whitaker.



People dont wonder why Pernell Whitaker came out on the short end of some of these decisions. The answer is simple. Pea did't put up a significant offense in a sport where offense counts the most!:hey :deal

Btw, Pernell Whitaker would have us believe that up to his last fight where he quit due to an injury, he was undefeated.......

Pernell Whitaker to Larry Merchant after his loss to Trinidad....
"They did it to me again Larry!":lol: :lol: :lol:
Vlade I'll make a deal with ya, give me a round by round card for the first Rivera fight and I'll youtube it for all to see Rivera "clearly outbox" Whitaker :good

[Robbi]

I'm in aggreance.

You get a few diehard Sweet Pea fans around here that claim Pernell should have been undefeated heading into the Trinidad fight.....
....how convenient of them to forget the Rivera fight in which I feel Rivera clearly outboxed Pernell.

The thing about the Rivera fight is that not only was Pernell technically outboxed, but Rivera was also the aggressor who landed the cleaner harder shots.

To sum it up, Pernell left the door open by being to defensive which usually translates to an unmeaningful offense in his fights with Chavez, DLH and even Ramirez (although I clearly had Pernell beating Ramirez)

Rivera on the other hand outboxed and tatood Pernell with meaningful accurate punches...all this while being the aggressor.

Imo the Rivera fight was just as big a robbery that the Ramirez fight was for Whitaker.



People dont wonder why Pernell Whitaker came out on the short end of some of these decisions. The answer is simple. Pea did't put up a significant offense in a sport where offense counts the most!:hey :deal

Btw, Pernell Whitaker would have us believe that up to his last fight where he quit due to an injury, he was undefeated.......

Pernell Whitaker to Larry Merchant after his loss to Trinidad....
"They did it to me again Larry!":lol: :lol: :lol:

Whitaker mixed brilliant defense with brilliant offense.

[sues2nd]

Vlade I'll make a deal with ya, give me a round by round card for the first Rivera fight and I'll youtube it for all to see Rivera "clearly outbox" Whitaker :good

:good

[achillesthegreat]

Vlade I'll make a deal with ya, give me a round by round card for the first Rivera fight and I'll youtube it for all to see Rivera "clearly outbox" Whitaker :good
Nice idea.

SS is bringing out the big guns, he is here to lay a whooping. The list of publications is one thing. The chavez fans try to break left but SS stays with them and rises to the challenge.

[4Rounder]

^^^ Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you someone who has never seen the DAMN FIGHT!!!!

:lol::lol::lol:

I have seen the fight fuck face. :rofl

IT WAS A DRAW!!!!!!!!! no matter how many times you cry robbery :|
it will never be changed from the books. Swallow it, the judges who scored it a draw had it right. :hi:

[divac]

Vlade I'll make a deal with ya, give me a round by round card for the first Rivera fight and I'll youtube it for all to see Rivera "clearly outbox" Whitaker :good

If you can upload that fight for me to score, Id' be more than happy to rescore it!

Youtube does not work for me. It must be my outdated old PC, but the stills are too grainy and I end up looking at the fight as if I was hitting the pause button on and off throughout.
It's impossible for me to even tell if alot of the punches are scoring or not.

Upload it for me and you have a deal!:good

[Robbi]

:patsch When they fought Chavez was almost 32 years old,well pass his prime ,Whitaker was 2 years younger.
Chavez had 54 more fights than Whitaker and all he did was run and hug for 12 rounds:lol: :lol: what a shame,Chavez in his prime would ko pea, no doubt in my mind.

Chavez was 31 years old, Whitaker was 29 years old. Both were still awesome fighters when they fought, but both were past their primes.

"Whitaker all he did was run and hug for 12 rounds". I don't think so. Whitaker clearly beat Chavez inside, as well as boxing his head off.

Sometimes with the opinions on here, you actually wonder if people are joking and taking the pIss.

[Robbi]

:patsch When they fought Chavez was almost 32 years old,well pass his prime ,Whitaker was 2 years younger.
Chavez had 54 more fights than Whitaker and all he did was run and hug for 12 rounds:lol: :lol: what a shame,Chavez in his prime would ko pea, no doubt in my mind.

Its amazing how biased your views are. In the post above you mention Chavez being past his prime, but not Whitaker. Just to to make your arguement look better for Chavez.

[sues2nd]

:lol::lol::lol:

I have seen the fight fuck face. :rofl

IT WAS A DRAW!!!!!!!!! no matter how many times you cry robbery :|
it will never be changed from the books. Swallow it, the judges who scored it a draw had it right. :hi:

I stick with what I said.

Ladies and Gentlemen....I give you someone who has never seen the fight!!!

[sues2nd]

:patsch When they fought Chavez was almost 32 years old,well pass his prime ,Whitaker was 2 years younger.
Chavez had 54 more fights than Whitaker and all he did was run and hug for 12 rounds:lol: :lol: what a shame,Chavez in his prime would ko pea, no doubt in my mind.

Chavez was the number 1 p4p fighter in the world when they fought you twit. Past his prime? Like you said he fought 54 more fights? What are you talking about?

Notice everyone who dislikes Sweet Pea is a Chavez fan? Coincidence???

[sweet_scientist]

If you can upload that fight for me to score, Id' be more than happy to rescore it!

Youtube does not work for me. It must be my outdated old PC, but the stills are too grainy and I end up looking at the fight as if I was hitting the pause button on and off throughout.
It's impossible for me to even tell if alot of the punches are scoring or not.

Upload it for me and you have a deal!:good

Don't you have the fight in your garage? I seem to recall you do. Pull it out, score it, and then I'll youtube it for all others to verify. :good

[sweet_scientist]

Nice idea.

SS is bringing out the big guns, he is here to lay a whooping. The list of publications is one thing. The chavez fans try to break left but SS stays with them and rises to the challenge.

:lol:

You talk great hype. You'd kill it as a promoter :good

[BoppaZoo]

all i will say is i had Whitaker by 2 points over Chavez. 116-114

in the Rivera fight i had Rivera winning by 3 points 117-114

and the Dela Hoya fight i scored it ODH 116 Whitaker 115

i believe he did enough against Chavez but lost to Rivera and also the ODH fight i believe it could have been a draw or a win to ODN it was a close fight.

also i think alot of judges didnt know how to score a fighter like Sweet Pea and im not affraid to say that. why becuase he was in an era with 90% offensive based type fighters.
like most guys that were around were the Tyson's,Chavez's,Hearns etc. it was an era of those type of guys and i feel there are more defensive based guys now.

i feel Sweet Pea in this era would have been a great champ.
why because there are how many defensive type guys out there that have belts.
like PBF,Jermain Taylor, Cpry Spinks,Chad Dawson,B-Hop,Winky back then there was just Sweet Pea pretty much.

anyway thats why i feel those decisions went Chavez's way a bit.

[Liston3]

Whitaker-Ramirez was one of the worst robberies of all time, Whitaker 10-2

[sweet_scientist]

all i will say is i had Whitaker by 2 points over Chavez. 116-114

in the Rivera fight i had Rivera winning by 3 points 117-114

and the Dela Hoya fight i scored it ODH 116 Whitaker 115


You had DLH-Whitaker 116-115 despite Whitaker getting deducted a point and DLH being knocked down? How many even rounds did you score?

And Rivera only lost 3 points against Pea? I would LOVE to see your round by round for that fight.

[achillesthegreat]

:lol:

You talk great hype. You'd kill it as a promoter :good
It makes things so much more exciting doesn't it!

[sues2nd]

You stupid, check boxrec, Thad was Chavez's 88 fight when he face Whitaker, and he was over the hill, he cant be #1 p4p forever

Your a moron guerrero. Your one of maybe 5 people that still believe Chavez won/drawed in that fight.

Again, as I said, notice all of the people that dont like Pea are Chavez fans??? Coincidence???

[sues2nd]

You had DLH-Whitaker 116-115 despite Whitaker getting deducted a point and DLH being knocked down? How many even rounds did you score?

And Rivera only lost 3 points against Pea? I would LOVE to see your round by round for that fight.

So would I.

For all three of them actually.

[salsanchezfan]

You stupid, check boxrec, Thad was Chavez's 88 fight when he face Whitaker, and he was over the hill, he cant be #1 p4p forever


.............Oh, don't start with that "over the hill" crap. Chavez was on a serious roll going into that fight (well, obviously, as he was 80-something and 0, but beyond the mere ring record he was very very sharp in his pre-Whitaker fights). There was not one ounce of a hint that he had slipped a bit. This doesn't wash at all.

[brooklyn1550]

The judges gave Chavez the respect he deserved, for somebody who was world champion for 11 years, Like I wrote Thad was Chavez's 88 fight, and pea's 34,if you fought 54 more fights than your opponent, some of them real wars, Whitaker was 2+ years younger, you guys are fuking blind, Sweet pea was very good ,but No Great.
Other idiot mention Thad pea wasn't in his prime too, Thad's BS,he was 29 years old, so according to this moron Mayweather is past his prime already:patsch

Chavez was more accomplished and had been through wars, but if you are outboxed and outclassed, you deserve to lose the fight. Whitaker outboxed Chavez and outfought him at many moments in the fight and deserved to become the 1st man to give JCC a loss. I don't care if Chavez had been champion for 11 years and had 88 pro fights. If you go by your criteria, had Meldrick Taylor lasted the distance, he should have lost the fight.

Whitaker was a great fighter - a very good fighter is somebody like Buddy McGirt. He was possibly the best defensive fighter of all time who won titles in 4 different weight classes. You don't accomplish as much as he did without being a great fighter. If anything, you are blind because you are the only person I have ever come across who says Pernell was just "Very Good."

[sues2nd]

Chavez was more accomplished and had been through wars, but if you are outboxed and outclassed, you deserve to lose the fight. Whitaker outboxed Chavez and outfought him at many moments in the fight and deserved to become the 1st man to give JCC a loss. I don't care if Chavez had been champion for 11 years and had 88 pro fights. If you go by your criteria, had Meldrick Taylor lasted the distance, he should have lost the fight.

Whitaker was a great fighter - a very good fighter is somebody like Buddy McGirt. He was possibly the best defensive fighter of all time who won titles in 4 different weight classes. You don't accomplish as much as he did without being a great fighter. If anything, you are blind because you are the only person I have ever come across who says Pernell was just "Very Good."

No there are a few more Chavez fans on here that think Whitaker sucked.

But honestly, its ONLY Chavez fans. There are no others that do not give Whitaker his due.

Plain and simple, he beat their man. They know it. They will NEVER admit it. But it kills them inside. Its so obvious.

[brooklyn1550]

No there are a few more Chavez fans on here that think Whitaker sucked.

But honestly, its ONLY Chavez fans. There are no others that do not give Whitaker his due.

Plain and simple, he beat their man. They know it. They will NEVER admit it. But it kills them inside. Its so obvious.

:yep
How did you score the fight?

[salsanchezfan]

No there are a few more Chavez fans on here that think Whitaker sucked.

But honestly, its ONLY Chavez fans. There are no others that do not give Whitaker his due.

Plain and simple, he beat their man. They know it. They will NEVER admit it. But it kills them inside. Its so obvious.


............I think you're right, but deep down they know Whitaker kicked his ass. They just see it as a machismo pride thing that they aren't allowed to admit.

[sues2nd]

:yep
How did you score the fight?

9 rounds to 3...Whitaker.

There was ONE fairly close round (forgot which one...and I dont feel like watching the fight AGAIN right now)...so if I was feeling generous, I could see 8 - 4, but NO MORE....and no less than 9 - 3.

Honestly, it was a very EASY fight to score for the most part. Hense the ridiculousness of guerrero and the few other blind Chavez fans that feel it was a draw or GOD FORBID even a win for JCC (heard that one a few times).

I mean, Im a Chavez fan...I mean, how can you NOT be with the fantastic career he had (as well as the wars)....but the crazy ones all hate Sweet Pea, its hilarious!

[brooklyn1550]

9 rounds to 3...Whitaker.

There was ONE fairly close round...so if I was feeling generous, I could see 8 - 4, but NO MORE....and no less than 9 - 3.

Honestly, it was a very EASY fight to score for the most part. Hense the ridiculousness of guerrero and the few other blind Chavez fans that feel it was a draw or GOD FORBID even a win for JCC (heard that one a few times).

I mean, Im a Chavez fan...I mean, how can you NOT be with the fantastic career he had (as well as the wars)....but the crazy ones all hate Sweet Pea, its hilarious!

I had it 117-111 as well



Guerrerosoul:
Whitaker got the better of Chavez at a distance
Whitaker got the better of Chavez on the inside

[sues2nd]

I had it 117-111 as well

LOL, thats what I am saying.

How could a fight, that simple to score (most people that I have talked to had it 9-3 or 8-4 all for Sweet Pea), be insanely construed by the Chavez fans on here.

Its comical how they try to argue it too.

I mean, did ya hear guerrero? The judges gave him respect for all of his past fights/wars or whatever he said.

LMAO!!!

How weak of a counter point is that??? He basically ADMITTED without ADMITTING that he lost the fight.

These guys kill me!

:rofl :rofl

[brooklyn1550]

LOL, thats what I am saying.

How could a fight, that simple to score (most people that I have talked to had it 9-3 or 8-4 all for Sweet Pea), be insanely construed by the Chavez fans on here.

Its comical how they try to argue it too.

I mean, did ya hear guerrero? The judges gave him respect for all of his past fights/wars or whatever he said.

LMAO!!!

How weak of a counter point is that??? He basically ADMITTED without ADMITTING that he lost the fight.

These guys kill me!

:rofl :rofl

:lol: You shouldn't win a fight based on what you did in past fights if you are getting a boxing lesson or simply losing more rounds than you win.

[BoppaZoo]

LOL, thats what I am saying.

How could a fight, that simple to score (most people that I have talked to had it 9-3 or 8-4 all for Sweet Pea), be insanely construed by the Chavez fans on here.

Its comical how they try to argue it too.

I mean, did ya hear guerrero? The judges gave him respect for all of his past fights/wars or whatever he said.

LMAO!!!

How weak of a counter point is that??? He basically ADMITTED without ADMITTING that he lost the fight.

These guys kill me!

:rofl :roflall i will say is how many times have we seen these type things happen though.

i remember my first fight as a boxing fan it was you guessed it Fenech vs Nelson 1 another robbery that happened. i mean we had Fenech clearly winning 8 rounds yet it was scored a draw.

or how many times have we seen Sven Ottke and Markus Beyer get gift decisions its a part of boxing.

[4Rounder]

:lol: :lol: :lol:

What a fucking joke. :lol:

Chavez-Whitaker ended as a draw because it was a draw. :deal
Only the nuthugging delusional deuchbags leave no room to see why it was a draw. This myth has been beaten quite a bit for a long time and the Pea crotch smellers don't ever learn.

Whitaker was a great fighter, but he lacked an offense capability which produced his shortcomings. And that my friends can't be denied. :nod

[sues2nd]

Chavezian myth #1 - Chavez was shot/on the decline/getting old.
Truth - Chavez was the #1 p4p fighter in the world, only 32 years old, was the hands on favorite and had destroyed quite a few fighters leading up to it.

Chavezian myth #2 - All Sweet Pea did was run!
Truth - Sweet Pea outworked him (threw more), outlanding (by an alarming rate) and outboxed him (it was a CLINIC).

Chavezian myth #3 (newly added) - The judges gave Chavez the respect he deserved, for somebody who was world champion for 11 years (which somehow means he won???).
Truth - Clean Punching, Defense, Effective Aggression & Ring Generalship...nowhere in there does it say RESUME!!! BOY THAT STATEMENT IS DUMB!!!

Chavezian myth #4 (newly added) - Sweet Pea was very good, but no great!
Truth - Arguably the 2nd best lightweight ever (AND there is a case for #1...but Duran was absolutely a MONSTER at LW). Widely considered the best defensive fighter of all time. One of the fastest fighters ever. One of the best jabs ever. Champion in 4 different weight classes. Arguably shouldnt have lost a fight before the Trinidad fight and fought the best on his way there. Widely considered top 20 (at least) p4p All Time. Inducted into the HOF earlier this month.

Oh yeah.....he was NO GREAT ALL RIGHT!!! What the fuck are you on bro?

:huh

[brooklyn1550]

out boxed and outclassed, let me laugh:lol: :lol: Chavez chase him all night long, and last time I check, Chavez not only KO Taylor but destroy him, I think you guys are deep inside sore Taylor fans in disguise so you think pea was the best defensive fighter, so explain why some average fighters send him to the canvas a bunch of times?
Can you also explain why sweet pea end his Career fighting at super welter, but when Chavez was in his prime destroying every fighter they put in front of him, Whitaker never felt the urge to go up in weight?
if he did his professional debut the very same day Taylor did his, and they belong to the same eatable why he didn't try to avenge his friend?instead he let 31/2 fucking years go by be for he felt ready to challenge Chavez
to many question for you fucking retards?

Deep inside, you know Chavez was outworked and outlanded...so what if he was coming forward. He was outboxed. Another example of this recently was Baldomir-Mayweather...Baldomir was chasing him all night, but he clearly lost the fight despite his pressure and coming forward. But let me guess? Had he had more title defenses than Mayweather and had the same amount of fights he had coming in (which was much more than Floyd), the judges would have respected him more and given him a draw or the win.:roll:

Tua and McCall were never sent to the canvas, but by your criteria, they would be better defensively than Whitaker. Pep was sent to the canvas on several occasions as was Whitaker. Benitez was put down. Nicolino Locche was stopped, James Toney has been down 3 times, etc. Whitaker's chin wasn't iron, and he was caught and put down for a second, but to say he wasn't great defensively is like saying the Michael Jordan wasn't a great scorer.

Meldrick Taylor got busted up and was stopped and there is nothing that will ever change that,, but had he survived the 12th round, he deserved a decision...is there any denying that? Unless you don't understand the 10 point must system.

Whitaker was cleaning out the lightweight division and established himself as an ATG lightweight. He ended up winning titles in 4 weight classes while Julio won titles at 3.

You are the fucking retard

[sweet_scientist]

out boxed and outclassed, let me laugh:lol: :lol: Chavez chase him all night long

Yeah, and never caught him.

so you think pea was the best defensive fighter, so explain why some average fighters send him to the canvas a bunch of times?

Usually becuase he would contort himself in crazy ways and was off balance as a result. He only got hurt from one knockdown, against Mayweather.

Can you also explain why sweet pea end his Career fighting at super welter, but when Chavez was in his prime destroying every fighter they put in front of him, Whitaker never felt the urge to go up in weight?
if he did his professional debut the very same day Taylor did his, and they belong to the same eatable why he didn't try to avenge his friend?instead he let 31/2 fucking years go by be for he felt ready to challenge Chavez
to many question for you fucking retards?

Can you explain why Chavez only had a handful of fights at lightweight, took the lightweight title he KNEW belonged to Whitaker from Ramirez after robbing him and decided to go up in weight to fight Roger Mayweather again after already having ko'ed him in two rounds and Whitaker already beating him easily? Why not stay and fight the man he knew beat Ramirez? Why not unify a single weight division his whole career? Why not clean out a division?

Personally I think Whitaker's people feared Chavez after the Meldrick Taylor fight, (not Whitaker himself) but at the same time, did Chavez's people go looking for Whitaker? Did they make an offer to Whitaker in that period?

[brooklyn1550]

:lol: :lol: :lol:

What a fucking joke. :lol:

Chavez-Whitaker ended as a draw because it was a draw. :deal
Only the nuthugging delusional deuchbags leave no room to see why it was a draw. This myth has been beaten quite a bit for a long time and the Pea crotch smellers don't ever learn.

Whitaker was a great fighter, but he lacked an offense capability which produced his shortcomings. And that my friends can't be denied. :nod

The only shortcoming in the Chavez or Ramirez fights were the judging. Yes, the fights will go down as a loss and a draw on his record, but he deserved to win both fights. Whitaker threw over 1000 punches a fight at lightweight. He threw fast, crisp, sharp combinations and had one of the best jabs ever. His only downside was he didn't have a lot of power, but he threw every punch in the book and threw them in combnations - not one punch potshots.

[brooklyn1550]

guerrerosoul, ineffective aggression doesn't win fights. You need an example of effective aggression, watch Duran-Leonard I or Frazier-Ali I.

[sues2nd]

You know what....I started to write a long post answering your nonsense guerrero, but I see Sweet Scientist already did it. Pretty much what I was going to say!!!!

Well said as usual bro!

[brooklyn1550]

I think you guys are deep inside sore Taylor fans in disguise

Okay, I was never a fan of Meldrick Taylor and going into the fight, I wanted Chavez to beat him.

[brooklyn1550]

all i will say is how many times have we seen these type things happen though.

i remember my first fight as a boxing fan it was you guessed it Fenech vs Nelson 1 another robbery that happened. i mean we had Fenech clearly winning 8 rounds yet it was scored a draw.

or how many times have we seen Sven Ottke and Markus Beyer get gift decisions its a part of boxing.

Very good points...there are so many robberies in boxing, and it can be useless to argue the final outcome, but it's always fun to talk about/debate as to who we thought won the fight.

[bigtime9]

not one punch potshots.

those "potshots catch the judges' eyes so maybe just maybe if whitaker had potshotted he might have clearly dispalyed his dominance. hit and not get hit don't give the judges a chance to give rounds to the house fighter (ramirez, chavez, and oscar)

[sues2nd]

Very good points...there are so many robberies in boxing, and it can be useless to argue the final outcome, but it's always fun to talk about/debate as to who we thought won the fight.

Plus, does a robbery take away from the greatness of a fighter?

I mean, Chavez was an obvious one...as was Ramirez...but do you still consider those loss/draw when assessing Sweet Pea's career as a whole?

If something is taken away from someone when they obviously deserved it....it still should be considered his.

Pea beat both of them, BADLY, and 99% of the boxing community understands and acknowledges that...the other 1% = die hard Chavez fans.

And just for the record, I was also rooting for Chavez in the Taylor fight....its to this day, still one of my all time favorite fights/KOs.

[brooklyn1550]

Plus, does a robbery take away from the greatness of a fighter?

I mean, Chavez was an obvious one...as was Ramirez...but do you still consider those loss/draw when assessing Sweet Pea's career as a whole?

If something is taken away from someone when they obviously deserved it....it still should be considered his.


:good When people watch those fights, they see his greatness. He really beat Ramirez twice and beat Chavez, unfortunately, on paper, his record doesn't indicate that. Which is also why people shouldn't rely on boxrec to tell the whole story and actually see the fights for themselves.

[sues2nd]

those "potshots catch the judges' eyes so maybe just maybe if whitaker had potshotted he might have clearly dispalyed his dominance. hit and not get hit don't give the judges a chance to give rounds to the house fighter (ramirez, chavez, and oscar)

Ummm, in all three of those fights, Whitaker landed more than the other fighter, threw more than the other fighter and made the other fighter miss more.

What he did was hit and not get hit...and that is the very essence of boxing.

The DLH fight was close...but clear. The others were BLOWOUTS. He shut out Ramirez (really there was not a close round in that fight....NOT ONE...go watch it) and he schooled Chavez by at THE VERY LEAST 8 - 4 (and that is being generous).

In fact, here is a way to end this.....

guerrero....post your scorecard for the Chavez fight (the other guy can do it too). Really, let us know what rounds JCC won. I would love to see it....but anyone wanna bet neither of them do? Because once they do, it will be MUCH easier to prove their little pipe dream wrong.

So please......SCORE CARDS OR SHUT THE FUCK UP!!!!!

Im more than sure myself, brooklyn and sweet_scientist can give you ours....so what do ya say???

[sweet_scientist]

Ummm, in all three of those fights, Whitaker landed more than the other fighter, threw more than the other fighter and made the other fighter miss more.

What he did was hit and not get hit...and that is the very essence of boxing.

The DLH fight was close...but clear. The others were BLOWOUTS. He shut out Ramirez (really there was not a close round in that fight....NOT ONE...go watch it) and he schooled Chavez by at THE VERY LEAST 8 - 4 (and that is being generous).

In fact, here is a way to end this.....

guerrero....post your scorecard for the Chavez fight (the other guy can do it too). Really, let us know what rounds JCC won. I would love to see it....but anyone wanna bet neither of them do? Because once they do, it will be MUCH easier to prove their little pipe dream wrong.

So please......SCORE CARDS OR SHUT THE FUCK UP!!!!!

Im more than sure myself, brooklyn and sweet_scientist can give you ours....so what do ya say???

:nod

[sweet_scientist]

ho, now I understand why Chavez stop Ramirez when they fought, was some kind of punishment for robbing Whitaker title lol,

sorry but Chavez didn't have to ask nobody for nothing he was proven and in the top of the world at the time, should it be the other way around,
I personally think either Whitaker people or Whitaker himself just wait for the older Chavez to get older,so they can increase their probabilities of winning:bbb
Chavez "stopped" Ramirez because of an accidental headbut. He didn't come close to hurting him.

You may be right about Whitaker's people but I don't think Whitaker feared Chavez at all. He was calling him out 1990 onwards. The way Whitaker fought everyone, including taking on guys like DLH and even Tito when he was literally shot, I don't think he was scared of anyone. Don't you know, coke gives you a lot of confidence :yep

[brooklyn1550]

ho, now I understand why Chavez stop Ramirez when they fought, was some kind of punishment for robbing Whitaker title lol,



It was a technical decision from a Chavez headbut...Chavez didn't knock Ramirez out.

[brooklyn1550]

You may be right about Whitaker's people but I don't think Whitaker feared Chavez at all. He was calling him out 1990 onwards. THey way Whitaker fought everyone, including taking on guys like DLH and Tito when he was literally shot, I don't think he was scared of anyone. Don't you know, coke gives you a lot of confidence :yep

:good

[brooklyn1550]

guerrerosoul

How did you score the fight?

[jyuza]

This is unbelievable. Every Whitaker's thread has to turn into a Whitaker-Chavez debates.... I don't mind at all, there is always a bunch of people (haters ?) claiming "Whitaker lost to Oscar and drew with Chavez. Period."
What is funny in that kind of discussion is that usually those guys don't post their scorecards or don't put up arguments (even though I can't see any argument in this fight).

[divac]

Somebody should really let Sues2nd know that proffesional boxng is not scored through amatuer rules!:deal :yep :p



Btw, I hate for Chavez fans to get labeled Whitaker haters, because in all honesty I'm really not.......

I have great respect for the great things Pernell Whitaker could do in a boxing ring......he fought well vs a legit near prime version of JC Chavez.
I'm not one that feels Chavez was well past his best.
I do feel that fighting at Welter benefited Whitaker, but as far as Chavez being past his prime, I dont feel the way Guerrero does.

My take on the Chavez-Whitaker fight has always been that I felt people were over exaggerating the good things Pernell did in the fight, and overlooking the good things Chavez did in there.

For my taste, Pernell chose very few rounds in the fight to do any real fighting.
I dont think there was more than 3 rounds in the fight where Whitaker decided to put real leverage on his punches.
Thats the one thing I feel that Pernell did'nt do on a consistent enough basis vs Chavez and then DLH to merit the attention of a scoring judge.

Never had a problem with anybody who thought Whitaker deserved to win vs Chavez, the problem I have are with those that feel that Pernell won by a large margin.
I just dont see that.

I scored it a draw. The fight imo could have ranged from 7-5 either way, but no more than that.
Absolutely no way did either Chavez or Whitaker win 8 rounds in that fight.

When biggest robberies in history are discussed in forums like these, Chavez-Whitaker comes up alot, and I suspect many that mention it were fresh out of not havin to use diapers when they last seen the fight......thats where my problem and disagreement lies.


As for Chavez and Whitaker, they were both great fighters......




.......but Chavez was p4p greater!!!!!!:D :lol::hey ;)

[divac]

Chavez "stopped" Ramirez because of an accidental headbut. He didn't come close to hurting him.

You may be right about Whitaker's people but I don't think Whitaker feared Chavez at all. He was calling him out 1990 onwards. The way Whitaker fought everyone, including taking on guys like DLH and even Tito when he was literally shot, I don't think he was scared of anyone. Don't you know, coke gives you a lot of confidence :yep

Exactly Scientist, admit it to the forum......
......me and you have discussed this at lenghth before.....

......Maybe not Pernell himself, but the Duva's and Main Events were hesitant of having any of their top names from fighting JC Chavez at 140 lbs after they saw first hand up close and personal the horrific damage it did to Meldrick Taylor.

As a Pernell Whitaker fan, you should admit to the forum that yes, the Duva's were leary of putting either Taylor in a rematch or Pernell Whitaker up against what was essentially a systematic career ending slayer in JC Chavez at 140 lbs or below!

[Robbi]

Somebody should really let Sues2nd know that proffesional boxng is not scored through amatuer rules!:deal :yep :p



Btw, I hate for Chavez fans to get labeled Whitaker haters, because in all honesty I'm really not.......

I have great respect for the great things Pernell Whitaker could do in a boxing ring......he fought well vs a legit near prime version of JC Chavez.
I'm not one that feels Chavez was well past his best.
I do feel that fighting at Welter benefited Whitaker, but as far as Chavez being past his prime, I dont feel the way Guerrero does.

My take on the Chavez-Whitaker fight has always been that I felt people were over exaggerating the good things Pernell did in the fight, and overlooking the good things Chavez did in there.

For my taste, Pernell chose very few rounds in the fight to do any real fighting.
I dont think there was more than 3 rounds in the fight where Whitaker decided to put real leverage on his punches.
Thats the one thing I feel that Pernell did'nt do on a consistent enough basis vs Chavez and then DLH to merit the attention of a scoring judge.

Never had a problem with anybody who thought Whitaker deserved to win vs Chavez, the problem I have are with those that feel that Pernell won by a large margin.
I just dont see that.

I scored it a draw. The fight imo could have ranged from 7-5 either way, but no more than that.
Absolutely no way did either Chavez or Whitaker win 8 rounds in that fight.

When biggest robberies in history are discussed in forums like these, Chavez-Whitaker comes up alot, and I suspect many that mention it were fresh out of not havin to use diapers when they last seen the fight......thats where my problem and disagreement lies.


As for Chavez and Whitaker, they were both great fighters......




.......but Chavez was p4p greater!!!!!!:D :lol::hey ;)

7-5 either way?. C'mon mate, lets be serious. Forget my avatar, I'm no Whitaker nuthugger, trust me. Regarding Whitaker not constantly fighting during the 12 rounds. Was he not allowed to box?.

You were also the guy who went on about the De La Hoya v Trinidad fight. You favoured Trinidad. I'll tell you one thing mate, you must score on fighters coming forward and nothing else, certainly not clean effective punches.

[Robbi]

115-113 Chavez

As for you. I'm not the type of guy who gets wound up by people on boxing forums. But your scorecard annoys me, and your view on scoring the fight sucks. I think your a liar.

[joe the great]

Watching the fight for the first time on ESPN classic..., one of the worse robberie I have ever seen...

Did Whitaker lose a fight before the trinidad one ? Because it seem to me that he should have retired undefeated after the DLH one.
Whitaker didn't beat DLH. It was close though.

[sues2nd]

Somebody should really let Sues2nd know that proffesional boxng is not scored through amatuer rules!:deal :yep :p



Btw, I hate for Chavez fans to get labeled Whitaker haters, because in all honesty I'm really not.......

I have great respect for the great things Pernell Whitaker could do in a boxing ring......he fought well vs a legit near prime version of JC Chavez.
I'm not one that feels Chavez was well past his best.
I do feel that fighting at Welter benefited Whitaker, but as far as Chavez being past his prime, I dont feel the way Guerrero does.

My take on the Chavez-Whitaker fight has always been that I felt people were over exaggerating the good things Pernell did in the fight, and overlooking the good things Chavez did in there.

For my taste, Pernell chose very few rounds in the fight to do any real fighting.
I dont think there was more than 3 rounds in the fight where Whitaker decided to put real leverage on his punches.
Thats the one thing I feel that Pernell did'nt do on a consistent enough basis vs Chavez and then DLH to merit the attention of a scoring judge.

Never had a problem with anybody who thought Whitaker deserved to win vs Chavez, the problem I have are with those that feel that Pernell won by a large margin.
I just dont see that.

I scored it a draw. The fight imo could have ranged from 7-5 either way, but no more than that.
Absolutely no way did either Chavez or Whitaker win 8 rounds in that fight.

When biggest robberies in history are discussed in forums like these, Chavez-Whitaker comes up alot, and I suspect many that mention it were fresh out of not havin to use diapers when they last seen the fight......thats where my problem and disagreement lies.


As for Chavez and Whitaker, they were both great fighters......




.......but Chavez was p4p greater!!!!!!:D :lol::hey ;)

WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT???

The fight is scored on defense (Whitaker), Clean Punching (Whitaker...Chavez maybe hit him clean a handful of times at most), Ring Generalship (Ummm, did they fight Whitaker's pace or Chavez's...Exactly...Could at any point Chavez cut off the ring? Exactly again) and Effective Aggression (Chavez walking forward and getting hit all night, while doing really nothing else...is not effective...Whitaker again).

Funny, I had respect for you as a poster, I normally see eye to eye with alot your opinions. But to make a post like THAT, and then say I DONT KNOW HOW TO SCORE A FIGHT??? What are you a jackass?

Did Chavez hit Whitaker clean? NO!
Did he put up ANY defense to what Whitaker was throwing at him (remember Sweet Pea outworked him and outlanded him in almost every round...and with every type of punch..jab, power punch, body shot)? Again, NO!
Did Chavez keep the fight at his pace, or in anyway cut off the ring? HELL NO!
Was Chavez's aggression effective in anyway? NOT ON YOUR LIFE!

I dont know how to score a fight? I think you need to peer in the mirror for that one brother.

:hi:

Oh yeah, post your scorecards (round by round), I wanna see this. Again, I knew none of them would.

(and btw, I didnt label ALL Chavez fans Whitaker haters....HELL IM A CHAVEZ FAN...I said all Whitaker haters are Chavez fans...big difference.)

[sues2nd]

Here I will make it easy for you guys!!!

Here is the fight (ignore the Japanese announcers) in its entirety. Watch and tell me your scorecards, PLEASE....round by round.

yGMtYYt9dQc

9xtZMuUfLgQ

ZaEzMXWpkQk

I4456ja2ZFc

bEbl2Kicdjo

L6uZml1RtE0

There ya go. I will follow with my round by round.

(oh and let me post the other feed of the fight, which has the 6th round in it....its more of a highlight video tho...sorry all I could find.)

D56Bq5LrOo4

WcXtxaualiM

Again, watch and score!!!

[sues2nd]

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.

You guys gonna man the fuck up and post yours? :happy

[brooklyn1550]

Here I will make it easy for you guys!!!

Here is the fight (ignore the Japanese announcers) in its entirety. Watch and tell me your scorecards, PLEASE....round by round.

Again, watch and score!!!

:patsch No need to score...Whitaker was running all night, Chavez was the one actually coming forward. And most importantly, Chavez had more wars coming in to the fight and had also been champion for a longer period of time. The judges knew JCC deserved respect.

Chavez: 7 Rounds
Whitaker: 5 Rounds

Chavez was ROBBED!:lol:

[sues2nd]

:patsch No need to score...Whitaker was running all night, Chavez was the one actually coming forward. And most importantly, Chavez had more wars coming in to the fight and had also been champion for a longer period of time. The judges knew JCC deserved respect.

Chavez: 7 Rounds
Whitaker: 5 Rounds

Chavez was ROBBED!:lol:

Well you heard what divac said...I have no idea how to score a fight....:nut

Be careful bro...they might think your serious...:rofl :rofl :rofl

[sues2nd]

:good

I got the fight posted. Cmon where is the round by round scorecard? This way everyone can compare the rounds you had for Chavez to what happened in real life...

We are waiting.

[brooklyn1550]

Some people are just blind , if Thad is not Consider running, what is running?:patsch
Besides he fought very dirty , I so a lot of low blows from pea, holding and punching, running,running and more running, he ran easly 20 miles im thad fight!!

He was moving backwards, but landing clean punches. Chavez was coming forward, but not being very effective.

[sues2nd]

Some people are just blind , if Thad is not Consider running, what is running?:patsch
Besides he fought very dirty , I so a lot of low blows from pea, holding and punching, running,running and more running, he ran easly 20 miles im thad fight!!

Wow the grammer.....:patsch

Anyway...you ever gonna post your round by round or you just gonna keep talking shit out of you ass.

I told all of you that none of these Chavez maniacs were gonna post one...because they cant without being exposed!!!

[Robbi]

He was moving backwards, but landing clean punches. Chavez was coming forward, but not being very effective.

Whitaker also mixed things up well. Not just being effective while backing up, but also standing in a stationery position and being effective with power punches at distancen, beating Chavez and inside.

[brooklyn1550]

Whitaker also mixed things up well. Not just being effective while backing up, but also standing in a stationery position and being effective with power punches at distancen, beating Chavez and inside.

If I remember correctly, didn't he have Chavez backing up somewhere in the 7th to 9th rounds?

[hitman_hatton1]

7-5 either way?. C'mon mate, lets be serious. Forget my avatar, I'm no Whitaker nuthugger, trust me. Regarding Whitaker not constantly fighting during the 12 rounds. Was he not allowed to box?.

You were also the guy who went on about the De La Hoya v Trinidad fight. You favoured Trinidad. I'll tell you one thing mate, you must score on fighters coming forward and nothing else, certainly not clean effective punches.

:hi: :smooch

[Pugalist]

Whitaker was a phenomenal fighter, one of the best defensive fighters in the history of the sport. I think he could have made any fighter in the history of the sport look bad. But, ultimately, he was an incomplete fighter. Yes, a significant part of fighting is about hitting and not being hit, but that is all for naught if you can’t close the show. The ultimate aim is to ‘beat’ your opponent and not to simply win a 12 round points decision. That is, the goal is to break your opponents will - truly defeat him - either via knockout or by making him quit (Somehow bragging about the fact that you scored more points than your opponent in a 'fight' doesn't quite do it for me). At the end of a fight, I believe most fans of the sport want to be able to say so and so beat so and so and not simply that one man accumulated more points on the judges’ scorecards. Whitaker was great at the latter but all but incompetent (with elite opponents anyways) at the former – hence an incomplete fighter.

Chavez was the more complete fighter of his generation. He, I would argue, was the sweeter scientist. Unlike Whitaker, he was able to systematically take his opponents apart round by round, break them down, frequently stop them or, at least, force them to quit (either via reducing them to clutching, grabbing and running or via throwing in the towel). While Whitaker was content to hit and not be hit, Chavez wanted more – he wanted to break his opponents will. Chavez mastered the nuances of the game that allowed him to do just that. He could stand in the pocket, make his opponent miss and then punish them back. After accumulating punishment and sapping his opponent’s strength, he intuitively seemed to understand when it was safe to open up – to give one to take one. And people point to this and say, “Look, that is not the sweet science! He gets hit too much!” Bullshit! There is method to this madness – the goal, remember, is to break your opponents will. To do that, at some point, it is necessary to demonstrate to your opponent that you are physically and psychologically superior – you show him in these exchanges that you can take what he has to offer and that he is in for a world of hurt in return. Whitaker was either unwilling or incapable of doing this and therefore cannot be said to have truly mastered the discipline.

There’s a reason why we hold fighters like SRR, Holyfield, Duran and Chavez in so high esteem – they finished the damn show! I will always enjoy watching fighters like Whitaker, Pep and Nicolino Locke – they demonstrate, in its purest form, the art of hitting and not being hit. But the truly great ones, in my most humble opinion, go beyond this – they step it up and own their opponents in mind, body and soul.

[sues2nd]

Whitaker was a phenomenal fighter, one of the best defensive fighters in the history of the sport. I think he could have made any fighter in the history of the sport look bad. But, ultimately, he was an incomplete fighter. Yes, a significant part of fighting is about hitting and not being hit, but that is all for naught if you can’t close the show. The ultimate aim is to ‘beat’ your opponent and not to simply win a 12 round points decision. That is, the goal is to break your opponents will - truly defeat him - either via knockout or by making him quit (Somehow bragging about the fact that you scored more points than your opponent in a 'fight' doesn't quite do it for me). At the end of a fight, I believe most fans of the sport want to be able to say so and so beat so and so and not simply that one man accumulated more points on the judges’ scorecards. Whitaker was great at the latter but all but incompetent (with elite opponents anyways) at the former – hence an incomplete fighter.

Chavez was the more complete fighter of his generation. He, I would argue, was the sweeter scientist. Unlike Whitaker, he was able to systematically take his opponents apart round by round, break them down, frequently stop them or, at least, force them to quit (either via reducing them to clutching, grabbing and running or via throwing in the towel). While Whitaker was content to hit and not be hit, Chavez wanted more – he wanted to break his opponents will. Chavez mastered the nuances of the game that allowed him to do just that. He could stand in the pocket, make his opponent miss and then punish them back. After accumulating punishment and sapping his opponent’s strength, he intuitively seemed to understand when it was safe to open up – to give one to take one. And people point to this and say, “Look, that is not the sweet science! He gets hit too much!” Bullshit! There is method to this madness – the goal, remember, is to break your opponents will. To do that, at some point, it is necessary to demonstrate to your opponent that you are physically and psychologically superior – you show him in these exchanges that you can take what he has to offer and that he is in for a world of hurt in return. Whitaker was either unwilling or incapable of doing this and therefore cannot be said to have truly mastered the discipline.

There’s a reason why we hold fighters like SRR, Holyfield, Duran and Chavez in so high esteem – they finished the damn show! I will always enjoy watching fighters like Whitaker, Pep and Nicolino Locke – they demonstrate, in its purest form, the art of hitting and not being hit. But the truly great ones, in my most humble opinion, go beyond this – they step it up and own their opponents in mind, body and soul.

I love Chavez and alot about what you said about him was dead on. There is only one problem, when he fought Sweet Pea, he was unable to "close the show" and he was not the "sweeter scientist". All the while Sweet Pea was doing his crazy "hit and not be hit" thing (who knows why anyone would want to do that????).

And the point of boxing is, if you cannot "close the show", you had better "hit and not be hit" so you can win a "12 round point decision".

Seriously, I liked your post alot (I really did, dont mind my sarcasm...Im a dick sometimes :hey ), but just because a person doesnt knock everyone out, it doesnt take away ANYTHING from their overall greatness. I mean, some of the greatest fights in history went to the cards...should we ignore them because there was no knockout?

[Robbi]

Whitaker was a phenomenal fighter, one of the best defensive fighters in the history of the sport. I think he could have made any fighter in the history of the sport look bad. But, ultimately, he was an incomplete fighter. Yes, a significant part of fighting is about hitting and not being hit, but that is all for naught if you can’t close the show. The ultimate aim is to ‘beat’ your opponent and not to simply win a 12 round points decision. That is, the goal is to break your opponents will - truly defeat him - either via knockout or by making him quit (Somehow bragging about the fact that you scored more points than your opponent in a 'fight' doesn't quite do it for me). At the end of a fight, I believe most fans of the sport want to be able to say so and so beat so and so and not simply that one man accumulated more points on the judges’ scorecards. Whitaker was great at the latter but all but incompetent (with elite opponents anyways) at the former – hence an incomplete fighter.

Chavez was the more complete fighter of his generation. He, I would argue, was the sweeter scientist. Unlike Whitaker, he was able to systematically take his opponents apart round by round, break them down, frequently stop them or, at least, force them to quit (either via reducing them to clutching, grabbing and running or via throwing in the towel). While Whitaker was content to hit and not be hit, Chavez wanted more – he wanted to break his opponents will. Chavez mastered the nuances of the game that allowed him to do just that. He could stand in the pocket, make his opponent miss and then punish them back. After accumulating punishment and sapping his opponent’s strength, he intuitively seemed to understand when it was safe to open up – to give one to take one. And people point to this and say, “Look, that is not the sweet science! He gets hit too much!” Bullshit! There is method to this madness – the goal, remember, is to break your opponents will. To do that, at some point, it is necessary to demonstrate to your opponent that you are physically and psychologically superior – you show him in these exchanges that you can take what he has to offer and that he is in for a world of hurt in return. Whitaker was either unwilling or incapable of doing this and therefore cannot be said to have truly mastered the discipline.

There’s a reason why we hold fighters like SRR, Holyfield, Duran and Chavez in so high esteem – they finished the damn show! I will always enjoy watching fighters like Whitaker, Pep and Nicolino Locke – they demonstrate, in its purest form, the art of hitting and not being hit. But the truly great ones, in my most humble opinion, go beyond this – they step it up and own their opponents in mind, body and soul.

Well mate. From reading all of that, it looks like fighters should only fight one way in your opinion. Come forward and break opponents wills. "The ultimate aim is to "beat" your opponent and not win a 12 round points decision". Sorry, but it does not state in the rules while contesting a match over 12 rounds you need to "beat" your opponent. Im guessing with the word "beat" you mean throw power punches and be aggressive?.

I think many professional fighters would strongly disgree with your view on the following. "this is, the goal is to break your opponents will - truly defeat him - either by knockout or making him quit". The goal is about winning. Well, I'll go one better, winning in style. And in my opinion Chavez and Whitaker were totally different in terms of style, but both won impressively. Yes some fighters with a style of pressuring with power might agree with your view to a certain extent, but the name of the game is "winning".

Some fighters in history simply never had enough power to stand and trade punches. Willie Pep, Whitaker, and a prime Muhammad Ali, are probably the best examples. They had everything else in their arsenal to do things differently. If you have the boxing ability from long range, the speed and reflexes, foot movement, combined with stamina to hit your opponent and not get hit back, then why would you want to come forward like a bull during every round?. Your simply not playing to your strengths in that regard.

In my opinion. It impresses me more when a fighter hits his opponent, yet does not take many back in return. Its an art form, especially doing it while backing up. Its more difficult than taking one to give one. No question.

[brooklyn1550]

There’s a reason why we hold fighters like SRR, Holyfield, Duran and Chavez in so high esteem – they finished the damn show! I will always enjoy watching fighters like Whitaker, Pep and Nicolino Locke – they demonstrate, in its purest form, the art of hitting and not being hit. But the truly great ones, in my most humble opinion, go beyond this – they step it up and own their opponents in mind, body and soul.

So Pep isn't truly great, and Chavez and Holyfield are greater because they "owned their opponents in mind, body, and soul?

[brooklyn1550]

Yes, slick boxers who are evasive, speedy, and crafty can take the heart out of guys too. Just not as devestating as the punchers can.

[Robbi]

Whitaker did break his opponents wills by completely outboxing them and making it so they shut down. Watch his fight with Haugen, watch how Haugen just shut down toward the later rounds because he was afraid of getting hit and embarassed and boxed around anymore. Whitaker took his heart out., as he did to most in his prime.

Ramirez II

:bush

[Robbi]

I guess the Sweet pea fan club, don't know the difference between a very good fighter and a Great fighter,just look at Mayweather the guy is the most talented boxer out there,he just doesn't dare to be great!

Sweet science is hit and don't get hit,some fighters just break Thad balance when they become ultra defensive fighters.Defense has more to do with, lateral and head movement,counter punching, if you back up 85%of the fight Thad is not been defensive Thad is running.

somebody said Thad the best defense is a good offense!

Its all about variety. And Whitaker had more variety than Chavez. He could come forward and put on a clinic, and while going backwards. He was a much better boxer than Chavez. He had a better jab, and his defense was obviously superior. Have you watched Whitaker v Ramirez II at all?. And if you watch Whitaker against Chavez, you'll see that Whitaker was a very good inside operator. Standing his ground, and clearly landing clean effective power punches. Chavez' patient pressuring style was a joy to watch, and he was a bull who worked the body and cut the ring off like a true master. But he was also very hittable, and prefered to take some punches to give them back in return. Whitaker on the otherhand, could do it all.

[brooklyn1550]

I guess the Sweet pea fan club, don't know the difference between a very good fighter and a Great fighter,just look at Mayweather the guy is the most talented boxer out there,he just doesn't dare to be great!

Sweet science is hit and don't get hit,some fighters just break Thad balance when they become ultra defensive fighters.Defense has more to do with, lateral and head movement,counter punching, if you back up 85%of the fight Thad is not been defensive Thad is running.

somebody said Thad the best defense is a good offense!

Sweet Pea was a defensive master...he fought off the backfoot and did it as good as anybody I have ever seen. A runner is Andre Dirrell, a GREAT fighter is Pernell Whitaker. When he backed up, he was still throwing punches, landing clean shots, and making the other guy miss...THAD is effective boxing for you.

[sues2nd]

I guess the Sweet pea fan club, don't know the difference between a very good fighter and a Great fighter,just look at Mayweather the guy is the most talented boxer out there,he just doesn't dare to be great!

Sweet science is hit and don't get hit,some fighters just break Thad balance when they become ultra defensive fighters.Defense has more to do with, lateral and head movement,counter punching, if you back up 85%of the fight Thad is not been defensive Thad is running.

somebody said Thad the best defense is a good offense!

I posted the Chavez fight, and my round for round.

So I will say this again....

ROUND BY ROUND SCORECARD OR SHUT THE FUCK UP!!!

:good

And you are only proving all of us right by ignoring this. Its a simple request...watch the fight, score it round by round and post the scores. This way we can know what rounds you think Chavez won...and how crazy you really are.

So scorecard or STFU!!!

:yep

[Robbi]

Sweet Pea was a defensive master...he fought off the backfoot and did it as good as anybody I have ever seen. A runner is Andre Dirrell, a GREAT fighter is Pernell Whitaker. When he backed up, he was still throwing punches, landing clean shots, and making the other guy miss...THAD is effective boxing for you.

Whitaker was one of the greatest and most complete prize fighters even to lace'em up.

He never had much power. But lets look at it this way. Not having power is a major disadvantage. If you have serious power, and can KO opponents early. Like Tyson, Trinidad, etc. The fight is over. But fighters who don't have much power need to work for their wins. And Whitaker certainly worked for his, and done it with class. The man had everything. His variety of offense and defense was ridiculously awesome.

[brooklyn1550]

guerrerosoul, here's mine...
1 Whitaker (I thought he did enough to win the 1st round, could have gone to JCC)
2 Chavez (close round, gave it to JCC)
3 Whitaker
4 Whitaker
5 Chavez (his best round of the fight)
6 Whitaker
7 Whitaker
8 Whitaker
9 Whitaker
10 Whitaker
11 Whitaker
12 Chavez

117-111 Pernell Whitaker (9 Rounds to 3 Rounds)
I could easily have had it 116-112 (8 Rounds to 4 Rounds)

LET'S SEE YOURS

[sweet_scientist]

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.

You guys gonna man the fuck up and post yours? :happy


Well done mate. My card is the same as yours, only that I gave Chavez the 2nd and gave Whitaker the 5th. In any case, you can give both rounds to Chavez and he still loses big on our cards :good

[brownpimp88]

Whitaker did break his opponents wills by completely outboxing them and making it so they shut down. Watch his fight with Haugen, watch how Haugen just shut down toward the later rounds because he was afraid of getting hit and embarassed and boxed around anymore. Whitaker took his heart out., as he did to most in his prime. What did u enjoy more, his fight with haugen or roger mayweather? I say his fight with roger was by far his best performance.

[Robbi]

Really? He had trouble with Mayweather and was actually somewhat green I would say, he even got dropped. I would say he had many better performances than that. It's a good thing they didn't fight at WW though, cuz any decent fighter would've starched Whitaker beyond LW, right?

My personal favourite is Whitaker v Nelson.

[brooklyn1550]

I like the 2nd Ramirez fight the most

[brownpimp88]

Really? He had trouble with Mayweather and was actually somewhat green I would say, he even got dropped. I would say he had many better performances than that. It's a good thing they didn't fight at WW though, cuz any decent fighter would've starched Whitaker beyond LW, right?
I dont know, it seems to me that his fight with roger is where he actually showed alot of agression offensively. At welterweight he would most likely lose to the big welterweights, i mean the buddy mcgirt fight showed how good he was at welterweight, he barely beat him. Then after his win over vasquez, he just fought contenders/ journeyman until his loss to de la hoya. His welterweight resume is good, but i've seen better resume at 147.

[brownpimp88]

Agreed, fully agreed. I was joking about the last part though, I was just remarking on Brownpimp's odd views towards Whitaker.
I wouldn't say odd, i judge pernell based on how i watch him fight. I dont nuthug him, nor do i intentionally bash him. Alot of his supporters blow his accomplishments out of proportion. At lightweight, he had a great career, there is no doubt about it. However, people act like he would beat all the best fighters at 140 and 147 just cuz he beat pineda at 140 and edged out a win over mcgirt.

[sweet_scientist]

Whitaker was a phenomenal fighter, one of the best defensive fighters in the history of the sport. I think he could have made any fighter in the history of the sport look bad. But, ultimately, he was an incomplete fighter. Yes, a significant part of fighting is about hitting and not being hit, but that is all for naught if you can’t close the show. The ultimate aim is to ‘beat’ your opponent and not to simply win a 12 round points decision. That is, the goal is to break your opponents will - truly defeat him - either via knockout or by making him quit (Somehow bragging about the fact that you scored more points than your opponent in a 'fight' doesn't quite do it for me). At the end of a fight, I believe most fans of the sport want to be able to say so and so beat so and so and not simply that one man accumulated more points on the judges’ scorecards. Whitaker was great at the latter but all but incompetent (with elite opponents anyways) at the former – hence an incomplete fighter.

Chavez was the more complete fighter of his generation. He, I would argue, was the sweeter scientist. Unlike Whitaker, he was able to systematically take his opponents apart round by round, break them down, frequently stop them or, at least, force them to quit (either via reducing them to clutching, grabbing and running or via throwing in the towel). While Whitaker was content to hit and not be hit, Chavez wanted more – he wanted to break his opponents will. Chavez mastered the nuances of the game that allowed him to do just that. He could stand in the pocket, make his opponent miss and then punish them back. After accumulating punishment and sapping his opponent’s strength, he intuitively seemed to understand when it was safe to open up – to give one to take one. And people point to this and say, “Look, that is not the sweet science! He gets hit too much!” Bullshit! There is method to this madness – the goal, remember, is to break your opponents will. To do that, at some point, it is necessary to demonstrate to your opponent that you are physically and psychologically superior – you show him in these exchanges that you can take what he has to offer and that he is in for a world of hurt in return. Whitaker was either unwilling or incapable of doing this and therefore cannot be said to have truly mastered the discipline.

There’s a reason why we hold fighters like SRR, Holyfield, Duran and Chavez in so high esteem – they finished the damn show! I will always enjoy watching fighters like Whitaker, Pep and Nicolino Locke – they demonstrate, in its purest form, the art of hitting and not being hit. But the truly great ones, in my most humble opinion, go beyond this – they step it up and own their opponents in mind, body and soul.
That's a well articulated, in-depth post mate, but it leads to an absurd conclusion: that Pep, Pea and Nico aren't truly great fighters.

We hold fighters like Chavez and Holyfield in higher esteem than Willie Pep? Ah.... since when? Have you ever seen either of them CLOSE to Pep on an all time list? I haven't.

Whilst there is definitely something to be said of fighters who break their opponents down physically and mentally so as to stop them or make them quit, I think you are too narrowly defining the terms of engagement in a boxing match. Boxing is much more diverse than what your post implies.

The ultimate aim isn't as you suggest to stop or make your opponent quit, the ultimate aim is to win the contest. One of the ways of doing that is to break your opponents down physically and mentally so that you stop them or make them quit. Another way of doign it is by hitting and not getting hit in return. That's what Whitaker did against Chavez; that's WHY he won the fight.

You might have a preference for fighters that can steamroll their opponents, and I'm sure most fight fans do likewise, that's what makes fighters like Chavez so popular, but to say that only fighters who match your preference are truly great is to undervalue the art of hitting and not getting hit. It may seem dainty to have boxing reduced to such a method of operation, but to undervalue it is to undervalue the key component that goes along with power/strength/will which you champion: skill. It's that which Whitaker had in truckloads, and its that which enabled him to blunt Chavez's heavy artillery and outpoint him at just about every turn.

[Robbi]

That's a well articulated, in-depth post mate, but it leads to an absurd conclusion: that Pep, Pea and Nico aren't truly great fighters.

We hold fighters like Chavez and Holyfield in higher esteem than Willie Pep? Ah.... since when? Have you ever seen either of them CLOSE to Pep on an all time list? I haven't.

Whilst there is definitely something to be said of fighters who break their opponents down physically and mentally so as to stop them or make them quit, I think you are too narrowly defining the terms of engagement in a boxing match. Boxing is much more diverse than what your post implies.

The ultimate aim isn't as you suggest to stop or make your opponent quit, the ultimate aim is to win the contest. One of the ways of doing that is to break your opponents down physically and mentally so that you stop them or make them quit. Another way of doign it is by hitting and not getting hit in return. That's what Whitaker did against Chavez; that's WHY he won the fight.

You might have a preference for fighters that can steamroll their opponents, and I'm sure most fight fans do likewise, that's what makes fighters like Chavez so popular, but to say that only fighters who match your preference are truly great is to undervalue the art of hitting and not getting hit. It may seem dainty to have boxing reduced to such a method of operation, but to undervalue it is to undervalue the key component that goes along with power/strength/will which you champion: skill. It's that which Whitaker had in truckloads, and its that which enabled him to blunt Chavez's heavy artillery and outpoint him at just about every turn.

My reply to his post was very similar to yours.

[brownpimp88]

You seem to think he was on par with God himself at LW. You think he was even better than I do at LW, and yet you don't seem to think he was much(if any) good at higher weights. Watch his fight with Pineda, not who he was fighting(as we know he was very capable of fighting and beating the best), and you'll see that was one of his best overall performances. At 147 he CLEARLY beat McGirt twice(and McGirt was a top 10 P4P fighter at the time) and a past his prime Pea IMo beat De La Hoya. He didn't have a long run at 147 cuz he was past his prime, but at his best at that weight he showed he could be among the best. Also, his performance against Vasquez at 154 was awesome as well. He beat mcgirt the first time by like 1 or 2 points, hardly a dominating performance. Many people on this site think that he would dust mosley and mayweather with ease, the fact of the matter is that i can see both winning 5-7 rounds against whitaker. If pernell beat camacho, rosario and mancini at lightweight too, i would rank him as the #1 lightweight of all times without a shadow of a doubt.

[sweet_scientist]

My reply to his post was very similar to yours.

Yeah I agreed with most of the replies that were made to his post, just wanted to elaborate on it a bit :good

[sues2nd]

He beat mcgirt the first time by like 1 or 2 points, hardly a dominating performance. Many people on this site think that he would dust mosley and mayweather with ease, the fact of the matter is that i can see both winning 5-7 rounds against whitaker. If pernell beat camacho, rosario and mancini at lightweight too, i would rank him as the #1 lightweight of all times without a shadow of a doubt.

Actually I think Mosely would be a VERY tough fight for Whitaker. A virtual pick-em...and Im as big a Sweet Pea fan as you will find on here.

Mayweather tho, doesnt match up with Sweet Pea well at all...but that post is already up right now, so I dont want to get too into it.

[brownpimp88]

Mancini? Come on now, it's obvious Whitaker wins that one.

Rosario? I seem to remember a certain Nazario knocking Rosario the fuck out, and then Whitaker KO'ing Nazario in the first round.

Whitaker was young when Camacho was at his best(hadn;t even started actually), not ready for that fight. When Whitaker started getting up there, Camacho was not as highly touted as he used to be. At 130 Camacho was amazing, at 135, post-Rosario, he wasn't so hot.

You think Floyd or Mosley could beat Pernell? AT LW Mosley could give him some problems but ultimately his lack of defense combined with Pernell's accuracy and amazing defense would give him the win. Pernell was everything Floyd was but with a much higher workrate, he would win on effective aggressiveness and give Floyd fits with the southpaw jab.
He would have beat rosario and mancini with ease, but it would have helped his legacy. IMO, camacho would have given him a tough ass fight at 135, meldrick taylor would have given him hell at 140, quartey would have given him a dangerous fight at 147 and terry norris would have most likely outboxed him at 154. We never saw these fights happen due to politics but the fact of the matter, is that all 4 of these slick boxers would have given pernell a rough fight for sure.

[divac]

Whitaker was a phenomenal fighter, one of the best defensive fighters in the history of the sport. I think he could have made any fighter in the history of the sport look bad. But, ultimately, he was an incomplete fighter. Yes, a significant part of fighting is about hitting and not being hit, but that is all for naught if you can’t close the show. The ultimate aim is to ‘beat’ your opponent and not to simply win a 12 round points decision. That is, the goal is to break your opponents will - truly defeat him - either via knockout or by making him quit (Somehow bragging about the fact that you scored more points than your opponent in a 'fight' doesn't quite do it for me). At the end of a fight, I believe most fans of the sport want to be able to say so and so beat so and so and not simply that one man accumulated more points on the judges’ scorecards. Whitaker was great at the latter but all but incompetent (with elite opponents anyways) at the former – hence an incomplete fighter.

Chavez was the more complete fighter of his generation. He, I would argue, was the sweeter scientist. Unlike Whitaker, he was able to systematically take his opponents apart round by round, break them down, frequently stop them or, at least, force them to quit (either via reducing them to clutching, grabbing and running or via throwing in the towel). While Whitaker was content to hit and not be hit, Chavez wanted more – he wanted to break his opponents will. Chavez mastered the nuances of the game that allowed him to do just that. He could stand in the pocket, make his opponent miss and then punish them back. After accumulating punishment and sapping his opponent’s strength, he intuitively seemed to understand when it was safe to open up – to give one to take one. And people point to this and say, “Look, that is not the sweet science! He gets hit too much!” Bullshit! There is method to this madness – the goal, remember, is to break your opponents will. To do that, at some point, it is necessary to demonstrate to your opponent that you are physically and psychologically superior – you show him in these exchanges that you can take what he has to offer and that he is in for a world of hurt in return. Whitaker was either unwilling or incapable of doing this and therefore cannot be said to have truly mastered the discipline.

There’s a reason why we hold fighters like SRR, Holyfield, Duran and Chavez in so high esteem – they finished the damn show! I will always enjoy watching fighters like Whitaker, Pep and Nicolino Locke – they demonstrate, in its purest form, the art of hitting and not being hit. But the truly great ones, in my most humble opinion, go beyond this – they step it up and own their opponents in mind, body and soul.

My compliments Pugalist....
.....Just beautiful!
One of the best posts I've ever read on a boxing site!:good

[divac]

That's a well articulated, in-depth post mate, but it leads to an absurd conclusion: that Pep, Pea and Nico aren't truly great fighters.

We hold fighters like Chavez and Holyfield in higher esteem than Willie Pep? Ah.... since when? Have you ever seen either of them CLOSE to Pep on an all time list? I haven't.

Whilst there is definitely something to be said of fighters who break their opponents down physically and mentally so as to stop them or make them quit, I think you are too narrowly defining the terms of engagement in a boxing match. Boxing is much more diverse than what your post implies.

The ultimate aim isn't as you suggest to stop or make your opponent quit, the ultimate aim is to win the contest. One of the ways of doing that is to break your opponents down physically and mentally so that you stop them or make them quit. Another way of doign it is by hitting and not getting hit in return. That's what Whitaker did against Chavez; that's WHY he won the fight.

You might have a preference for fighters that can steamroll their opponents, and I'm sure most fight fans do likewise, that's what makes fighters like Chavez so popular, but to say that only fighters who match your preference are truly great is to undervalue the art of hitting and not getting hit. It may seem dainty to have boxing reduced to such a method of operation, but to undervalue it is to undervalue the key component that goes along with power/strength/will which you champion: skill. It's that which Whitaker had in truckloads, and its that which enabled him to blunt Chavez's heavy artillery and outpoint him at just about every turn.

You must have not paid enough attention to Pugalist masterful post.

I know you dont believe this yourself, but you're insinuating through your post that Chavez was a plum steamroller without much other skill.

Duran, Chavez, Holyfield......
As Pugalist so eloquently stated, these fighters were not straight on brawlers who came to steamroll.
They were complete fighters in that they understood the nuances of the fight game.
Chavez for exammple was a notoriously slow starter. He boxed for the better part of the first several rounds.
Studied and found out through some form of cautiousness what he could and could'nt get away with, along the way tasting what his opponent had to offer.
Imo, truly complete great fighters study, find their niche, and then go on an actual attack mode once they sense the time is right and ripe.

To be overly defensive is to give up alot offensively, something that imo Whitaker did when faced with his best opposition.


Again gentleman, except for about 3 rounds in Whitakers fight with Chavez, there was very little of any leverage on his shots.

Some of you Whitaker supporters point out that Whitaker ouboxed Chavez from the outside and outfought him on the inside, never pointing out that it was in two rounds of the fight that Pernell actually had the audacity to fight Chavez up close.

For the most part, Whitaker ran throughout the fight, and mostly never had his feet planted when he punched.
How much leverage and power can be in a punch when you dont have your feet planted?

Having said that, Whitaker nullified Chavez' offense enough in a fair share of these rounds that his boxing was enough to win him the round.

The way I scored it, if Whitaker offered enough hard jabs and counter shots in a round, I scored the round for him.

When Whitaker ran, did'nt offer to plant his feet to counter with punches of significance, then from my point of view, Chavez was outgeneraling him and forcing him to run.
In essence, in these rounds, Chavez was taking Whitaker's ability to apply significant offense away from him.

What Pugalist wrote about Chavez being the more complete fighter imo is absolutely true.
Boxing to me is not about finding a way to stall a boxing match.
.....and when you're ultra defensive as Pernell Whitaker was, thats exactly what happens in a boxing match, the match comes to a stall with very little meaningful boxing related exchanges in them.


Somebody mentioned Ali in a previous post......
......Ali is a perfect example of a fighter who knew what the people came there to see......
Did he not knockout Sonny Liston and George Foreman???:deal

Ali could be just as defensive as Pernell Whitaker, but unlike Whitaker, knew, that he had to apply real punching (not just pitter patter, and punching with your feet not planted)
Ali, knew all about the art of closing a show!!!!:bbb

[sweet_scientist]

You must have not paid enough attention to Pugalist masterful post.

I know you dont believe this yourself, but you're insinuating through your post that Chavez was a plum steamroller without much other skill.

Duran, Chavez, Holyfield......
As Pugalist so eloquently stated, these fighters were not straight on brawlers who came to steamroll.
They were complete fighters in that they understood the nuances of the fight game.
Yes it's the wrong insinuation, I merely meant to short hand "fighters who break their opponents down physically and mentally so as to stop them or make them quit". These fighters usually start off slow and them come on to overwhelm their opponents, as you state below. That's what I meant by steamroll. And also, I didn't mean to imply that Chavez had no skill. He was very skilfull. (And I don't believe Whitaker didn't break down opponents physically and mentally, of course he did, though not to the degree that Chavez did.) I just think he wasn't as skilfull as Whitaker and that's what got exposed in their fight.


Chavez for exammple was a notoriously slow starter. He boxed for the better part of the first several rounds.
Studied and found out through some form of cautiousness what he could and could'nt get away with, along the way tasting what his opponent had to offer.
Imo, truly complete great fighters study, find their niche, and then go on an actual attack mode once they sense the time is right and ripe.
You see, this is where Chavez failed in the Whitaker fight. He actually started off well, got the better of the early going (who would've thought?) but then got completely owned down the stretch. It's arguable he didn't win a round after the 2nd round. At most I think an argument can be made that he won the 5th, 9th and 12th. And its only an argument, because Whitaker arguably won all those rounds as well.


To be overly defensive is to give up alot offensively, something that imo Whitaker did when faced with his best opposition.


Again gentleman, except for about 3 rounds in Whitakers fight with Chavez, there was very little of any leverage on his shots.

Some of you Whitaker supporters point out that Whitaker ouboxed Chavez from the outside and outfought him on the inside, never pointing out that it was in two rounds of the fight that Pernell actually had the audacity to fight Chavez up close.

For the most part, Whitaker ran throughout the fight, and mostly never had his feet planted when he punched.
How much leverage and power can be in a punch when you dont have your feet planted?

Having said that, Whitaker nullified Chavez' offense enough in a fair share of these rounds that his boxing was enough to win him the round.

The way I scored it, if Whitaker offered enough hard jabs and counter shots in a round, I scored the round for him.

When Whitaker ran, did'nt offer to plant his feet to counter with punches of significance, then from my point of view, Chavez was outgeneraling him and forcing him to run.
In essence, in these rounds, Chavez was taking Whitaker's ability to apply significant offense away from him.
I think you are overemphasising the planting of feet to get leverage on shots. Remember the Lomeli fight? Whitaker all but ko'ed him whilst literally jumping backwards. What is of ultimate importance is landing the cleaner, more effective shots. This is ususally, but NOT ALWAYS determined by the planting of feet to get leverage. For instance, in their fight, Chavez was constantly planting his feet to get leverage, but how many clean effective shots did he land? The answer, of course, overall, is less than Whitaker, and not only that, but in less rounds than Whitaker as well.

What Pugalist wrote about Chavez being the more complete fighter imo is absolutely true.
Boxing to me is not about finding a way to stall a boxing match.
.....and when you're ultra defensive as Pernell Whitaker was, thats exactly what happens in a boxing match, the match comes to a stall with very little meaningful boxing related exchanges in them.
Chavez was arguably more well rounded than Whitaker in that he could punch, impose his will and break fighters down more, but he was not a greater fighter. Whitaker had skill Chavez knew nothing about and it told the tale in their fight.


Somebody mentioned Ali in a previous post......
......Ali is a perfect example of a fighter who knew what the people came there to see......
Did he not knockout Sonny Liston and George Foreman???:deal

Ali could be just as defensive as Pernell Whitaker, but unlike Whitaker, knew, that he had to apply real punching (not just pitter patter, and punching with your feet not planted)
Ali, knew all about the art of closing a show!!!!:bbb
Vlade, tell me, do you think Chavez and Holyfield are better fighters than Willie Pep? As you no doubt know, pretty much every pundit would scoff at this, but your position seems to lead you to thinking that they are. That it does, it seems to me that you are missing something vital about the sport in your theories.

[divac]

Yes it's the wrong insinuation, I merely meant to short hand "fighters who break their opponents down physically and mentally so as to stop them or make them quit". These fighters usually start off slow and them come on to overwhelm their opponents, as you state below. That's what I meant by steamroll. And also, I didn't mean to imply that Chavez had no skill. He was very skilfull. (And I don't believe Whitaker didn't break down opponents physically and mentally, of course he did, though not to the degree that Chavez did.) I just think he wasn't as skilfull as Whitaker and that's what got exposed in their fight.



You see, this is where Chavez failed in the Whitaker fight. He actually started off well, got the better of the early going (who would've thought?) but then got completely owned down the stretch. It's arguable he didn't win a round after the 2nd round. At most I think an argument can be made that he won the 5th, 9th and 12th. And its only an argument, because Whitaker arguably won all those rounds as well.


I think you are overemphasising the planting of feet to get leverage on shots. Remember the Lomeli fight? Whitaker all but ko'ed him whilst literally jumping backwards. What is of ultimate importance is landing the cleaner, more effective shots. This is ususally, but NOT ALWAYS determined by the planting of feet to get leverage. For instance, in their fight, Chavez was constantly planting his feet to get leverage, but how many clean effective shots did he land? The answer, of course, overall, is less than Whitaker, and not only that, but in less rounds than Whitaker as well.


Chavez was arguably more well rounded than Whitaker in that he could punch, impose his will and break fighters down more, but he was not a greater fighter. Whitaker had skill Chavez knew nothing about and it told the tale in their fight.



Vlade, tell me, do you think Chavez and Holyfield are better fighters than Willie Pep? As you no doubt know, pretty much every pundit would scoff at this, but your position seems to lead you to thinking that they are. That it does, it seems to me that you are missing something vital about the sport in your theories.

In all honesty Scientist, I know very little of Willie Pep, and so I could'nt tell you!:?

......and to tell you the truth, I dont think Chavez could punch any harder than Pernell Whitaker could. Chavez was just willing to put more leverage on his punches that resulted in accumalitive damage, thus the reason why he had alot of late knockouts and fighters surrendering on their stools.

I think you're honest enough to agree with me that Chavez was in all actuality exellent in his defensive manuevers, but he was willing to sacrifice part of his defense for an entertainment value to the fans.

.....you know I'm not lying Scientist, the fans come to see a beatdown and not a jabfest and posedown.

The thing that made Chavez special is that he knew how to walk that line and not to overly expose himself when he opened up his offensive game.
Rarely did you see a prime Chavez open up and just throw caution to the wind.
His offensive aggression was very calculating. Part of being great is knowing how to walk that fine line that crosses from defense to offense.
Chavez walked that line as good as I've ever seen a fighter walk it!



You stated Scientist about Chavez starting off well vs Whitaker. He did'nt start slow at all.
Is'nt that a fighter that did his homework?????
Chavez knew the hard task that lied in front of him.

He knew that the faster quicker fighter was Whitaker and so he knew that he had to crowd him and not afford him any punching room.

Had Chavez not started as aggressive as he did, Whitaker clearly would have taken the early rounds if he would have gave him room to punch.

I dont actually think that Whitaker is actually a better boxer than Chavez.
I'm not saying that he is or is'nt.....but for the sake of argument, if we were to say that they were equals in boxing ability, it's safe to assume that in a case of two fighters having equal boxing ability, the faster quicker fighter is going to do better at center ring given room to box.

The point I'm getting to is that Chavez was'nt about to give Pernell being the faster quicker fighter the room he needed to get his punches off with ease.
Chavez forced Whitaker to have to run.....
It was a cat and mouse game....in order for Pernell to establish that he was beyond a doubt the better fighter, he had to at certain instances in each round stop on a dime and at the very least temporarily for at least instances plant his feet as he punched.
It called establishing punching superiority.
Whitaker did it sucessfully in some rounds and in others he did'nt.

At the end of the day, the judges were not brainwashed by a pair of big rounds by Pernell Whitaker and by God decided to judge it round by round.....finding Pernell only had won half of the battle.

Quite honestly, I think Whitaker picked and chosed in which rounds to exhert real effort in, and hoped that what he may have done in a previous round would be remembered by those scoring.

Thankfully the judges judged as I did....on a round by round basis!:deal :yep


In hindsight, it was probably a great game plan by Pernell Whitaker, had he fought any other way, he would have had to have gone less defensive and been vulnerable to some of the punishment that Meldrick Taylor did.

It was probably the only thing that he could have done to compete and still at the end survive Chavez with a chance of winning.

I'll say this with all sincerity.....Whitaker fought well in quite a few of those rounds, but I'll say this with a passion.....He was far from dominating JC Chavez as alot of you would like to believe!

[4Rounder]

In all honesty Scientist, I know very little of Willie Pep, and so I could'nt tell you!:?

......and to tell you the truth, I dont think Chavez could punch any harder than Pernell Whitaker could. Chavez was just willing to put more leverage on his punches that resulted in accumalitive damage, thus the reason why he had alot of late knockouts and fighters surrendering on their stools.

I think you're honest enough to agree with me that Chavez was in all actuality exellent in his defensive manuevers, but he was willing to sacrifice part of his defense for an entertainment value to the fans.

.....you know I'm not lying Scientist, the fans come to see a beatdown and not a jabfest and posedown.

The thing that made Chavez special is that he knew how to walk that line and not to overly expose himself when he opened up his offensive game.
Rarely did you see a prime Chavez open up and just throw caution to the wind.
His offensive aggression was very calculating. Part of being great is knowing how to walk that fine line that crosses from defense to offense.
Chavez walked that line as good as I've ever seen a fighter walk it!



You stated Scientist about Chavez starting off well vs Whitaker. He did'nt start slow at all.
Is'nt that a fighter that did his homework?????
Chavez knew the hard task that lied in front of him.

He knew that the faster quicker fighter was Whitaker and so he knew that he had to crowd him and not afford him any punching room.

Had Chavez not started as aggressive as he did, Whitaker clearly would have taken the early rounds if he would have gave him room to punch.

I dont actually think that Whitaker is actually a better boxer than Chavez.
I'm not saying that he is or is'nt.....but for the sake of argument, if we were to say that they were equals in boxing ability, it's safe to assume that in a case of two fighters having equal boxing ability, the faster quicker fighter is going to do better at center ring given room to box.

The point I'm getting to is that Chavez was'nt about to give Pernell being the faster quicker fighter the room he needed to get his punches off with ease.
Chavez forced Whitaker to have to run.....
It was a cat and mouse game....in order for Pernell to establish that he was beyond a doubt the better fighter, he had to at certain instances in each round stop on a dime and at the very least temporarily for at least instances plant his feet as he punched.
It called establishing punching superiority.
Whitaker did it sucessfully in some rounds and in others he did'nt.

At the end of the day, the judges were not brainwashed by a pair of big rounds by Pernell Whitaker and by God decided to judge it round by round.....finding Pernell only had won half of the battle.

Quite honestly, I think Whitaker picked and chosed in which rounds to exhert real effort in, and hoped that what he may have done in a previous round would be remembered by those scoring.

Thankfully the judges judged as I did....on a round by round basis!:deal :yep


In hindsight, it was probably a great game plan by Pernell Whitaker, had he fought any other way, he would have had to have gone less defensive and been vulnerable to some of the punishment that Meldrick Taylor did.

It was probably the only thing that he could have done to compete and still at the end survive Chavez with a chance of winning.

I'll say this with all sincerity.....Whitaker fought well in quite a few of those rounds, but I'll say this with a passion.....He was far from dominating JC Chavez as alot of you would like to believe!

:clap: Bravo.

I couldn't have put it better myself. :good

[sweet_scientist]

In all honesty Scientist, I know very little of Willie Pep, and so I could'nt tell you!:?

Fair enough. Let's just say he lived and died by the hit and not be hit motto. He had a high workrate, like Whitaker, wasn't a big puncher, like Whitaker, and would rifle off combos whilst twisting, turning and spinning his opponents around and jumping in, out and side to side. Kind of like a fly that never sits still which is impossible to swat. Of his 230 odd fights he only scored 65 ko's. Anyway, I'm sure you know that he is a fixture for top ten all time lists, and some even regard him the greatest of all time. He didn't fight to knock the other guy out but oupoint him, and he was better at that than anyone in the history of the sport.


......and to tell you the truth, I dont think Chavez could punch any harder than Pernell Whitaker could. Chavez was just willing to put more leverage on his punches that resulted in accumalitive damage, thus the reason why he had alot of late knockouts and fighters surrendering on their stools.

I think you're honest enough to agree with me that Chavez was in all actuality exellent in his defensive manuevers, but he was willing to sacrifice part of his defense for an entertainment value to the fans.

.....you know I'm not lying Scientist, the fans come to see a beatdown and not a jabfest and posedown.

The thing that made Chavez special is that he knew how to walk that line and not to overly expose himself when he opened up his offensive game.
Rarely did you see a prime Chavez open up and just throw caution to the wind.
His offensive aggression was very calculating. Part of being great is knowing how to walk that fine line that crosses from defense to offense.
Chavez walked that line as good as I've ever seen a fighter walk it!

Not sure I agree that Chavez didn't punch harder than Whitaker, but he certaintly wasn't a one shot ko artist. He usually grinded guys down. Personally, I think Chavez had a better chin than Whitaker, which gave him the ability to stand and trade comfortably. He was confident that he could withstand anything the other man threw, even if it meant taking three punches to land one. A great advantage, and a big part of what made him so great. Of course, he had good defensive skills too. Not many offensive minded fighters do, but he like Duran, Armstrong and a few select others could both attack and defend equally well.

I've never argued that Whitaker was more fan friendly than Chavez and I agree with you fans come to see a beatdown rather than a showcase of jabs and posing (Not that that was all that Whitaker was, but he didn't lay beatdowns like Chavez did, obviously).


You stated Scientist about Chavez starting off well vs Whitaker. He did'nt start slow at all.
Is'nt that a fighter that did his homework?????
Chavez knew the hard task that lied in front of him.

He knew that the faster quicker fighter was Whitaker and so he knew that he had to crowd him and not afford him any punching room.

Had Chavez not started as aggressive as he did, Whitaker clearly would have taken the early rounds if he would have gave him room to punch.

He definitely learnt his lesson from the Taylor fight (where he started terribly slow), no doubt he purposefully came out looking for the early rounds. Credit to him for that, a very smart ploy. Problem was, he couldn't dominate the later rounds like he usually did, and its fair to say Whitaker was pretty dominant down the stretch.


I dont actually think that Whitaker is actually a better boxer than Chavez.
I'm not saying that he is or is'nt.....but for the sake of argument, if we were to say that they were equals in boxing ability, it's safe to assume that in a case of two fighters having equal boxing ability, the faster quicker fighter is going to do better at center ring given room to box.

The point I'm getting to is that Chavez was'nt about to give Pernell being the faster quicker fighter the room he needed to get his punches off with ease.
Chavez forced Whitaker to have to run.....

Well here's the thing. How much time did Whitaker spend up against the ropes or even close to them? Chavez actually got pushed to the ropes more than Whitaker did. Whitaker was moving, but he was smart not to let CHavez trap him and let him go to work. The fight was unquestionably fought at the distance Whitaker wanted.


It was a cat and mouse game....in order for Pernell to establish that he was beyond a doubt the better fighter, he had to at certain instances in each round stop on a dime and at the very least temporarily for at least instances plant his feet as he punched.
It called establishing punching superiority.
Whitaker did it sucessfully in some rounds and in others he did'nt.

I think he needed to land the cleaner more effective punches. In most rounds I felt he did, whether his feet were planted or not. You obviously feel different and always will. We'll just agree to disagree on that.

At the end of the day, the judges were not brainwashed by a pair of big rounds by Pernell Whitaker and by God decided to judge it round by round.....finding Pernell only had won half of the battle.

Quite honestly, I think Whitaker picked and chosed in which rounds to exhert real effort in, and hoped that what he may have done in a previous round would be remembered by those scoring.

Thankfully the judges judged as I did....on a round by round basis!:deal :yep


In hindsight, it was probably a great game plan by Pernell Whitaker, had he fought any other way, he would have had to have gone less defensive and been vulnerable to some of the punishment that Meldrick Taylor did.

It was probably the only thing that he could have done to compete and still at the end survive Chavez with a chance of winning.

I'll say this with all sincerity.....Whitaker fought well in quite a few of those rounds, but I'll say this with a passion.....He was far from dominating JC Chavez as alot of you would like to believe!

The judges made the call they made, and I do believe they did it with a good conscience, but really, who knows? With Don King and the influence he has with Jose Suliaman, I would not entirely rule out a fix. Sooo, sooo many bad calls have happened with the WBC over the years. Need I remind you of Fenech-Nelson I and Whitaker-Ramirez I, just to bring up two of the more unconsciounable. Jose Suliaman is as crooked as a dog's hind leg and I would not have put it past him to have been responsible for this. He has for instance on occasions been overheard instructing the judges in dressing rooms to reward aggressiveness rather than movement, as he did before the first Leonard-Duran fight. Aggressiveness is not part of the scoring criteria. It has to be effective aggression. Sometimes, I wonder if judges remember that.

In any case, I like many, many others, felt the judges made the wrong call. There's nothing we can do about it now though other than give our opinions on it. What's done is done.

[jyuza]

Wow Scientist is all into it, keep going !

[sweet_scientist]

Wow Scientist is all into it, keep going !

Vlade and me are always good for a yarn. :lol:

[jyuza]

Vlade and me are always good for a yarn. :lol:

:yep

You are winning in my scorecard, a shut out so far !

[sweet_scientist]

:yep

You are winning in my scorecard, a shut out so far !

Hahaha, yeah but I'm not breaking him down physically or mentally so as to stop him or make him quit.:D

[jyuza]

Hahaha, yeah but I'm not breaking him down physically or mentally so as to stop him or make him quit.:D

I expect a TKO at the end of the 11th. Keep working on the body, he is slowing down.

[divac]

Vlade and me are always good for a yarn. :lol:

Thats what I'm afraid of.....Scientist and I have gotten into debates on Chavez-Whitaker that have lasted for days. At the end of our run, we'd be right back in full circle where we started, not one or the other willing to budge on more than a few points.

The problem with me is that I usually decide to go into this site and post for a few minutes.....but with a good solid poster like Scientist and a few others.....these minutes sometimes turn into hours, taking up precious time that sometimes I cant afford.

I usually post late at night, and it runs up cutting up on my sleep time that I feel when I wake up in the morning to get my work day started.

......but I love debating and discussing these types of topics.
.....cant really do it in the real world with a live person, as their are very few that even know a little bit about the nuances of the sport!


I'm writing this during a break from my workday.
I'll be back later tonight, to see if I'm moved to respond further to the topic.


One of these days some of you guys are going to see it my way, Scientist included.......I'm sensing he's wilting a bit on a few points!
:lol: :lol: :lol: :D ;)


:hi:

[divac]

:yep

You are winning in my scorecard, a shut out so far !

:twisted: :fire :nono


:lol: ;) :hi:

[divac]

I expect a TKO at the end of the 11th. Keep working on the body, he is slowing down.

:nonoLike Chavez-Whitaker, this one is going to the cards.
At the end of the day, its a matter of opinion and taste!:bbb

I refuse to get KO'd!!!!:yep

[divac]

in my score card divac is destroying these bums!!!:bbb

:good :deal :yep :happy

[brooklyn1550]

guerrerosoul: POST YOUR SCORECARD OR DON'T ARGUE ANYMORE!

[sues2nd]

in my score card divac is destroying these bums!!!:bbb

Thats funny, your probably scared to give a round by round for that one too....

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: <---All of us laughing at you!!!

Now, as I said once, and I will say again...

ROUND BY ROUND SCORECARDS OR STFU!!!!

[sues2nd]

guerrerosoul: POST YOUR SCORECARD OR DON'T ARGUE ANYMORE!

LOL you beat me to it.

HEY, notice not one person that thinks Chavez won has dared to post a round by round???

Gee I wonder why!?!?!?

:huh <----Me wondering why?

:shock: <----Me realizing its because they cant because it will show they are full of shit!

:rofl <---Me laughing at them!!!

[SOUTHERMOST]

If I remember correctly the fight was in Europe the reason Sweet pea lost was because he ran too much this style of boxing is no good in Europe.

[sues2nd]

If I remember correctly the fight was in Europe the reason Sweet pea lost was because he ran too much this style of boxing is no good in Europe.

:patsch

[Robbi]

If I remember correctly the fight was in Europe the reason Sweet pea lost was because he ran too much this style of boxing is no good in Europe.

This term "running" I don't like. And I'm not just talking about Whitaker. Muhammad Ali in his prime was a very fast mover around the ring. He would circle all night long, throw jabs while backing up, and lean back to avoid blows. He would occassionaly stand his ground and throw 3-4-5 punch combinations, but for the most part he was always moving and throwing jabs. He was not interested in taking punches, and coming forward aggressively all night. This surely must be "running" as well?. Its not called "running", its called defensive "BOXING". An art form, which only the sublime skilled prize fighters in the trade can do effectively.

If one fighter can't solve the puzzle his opponent has presented him with over the course of a fight, tough luck.

[sweet_scientist]

One of these days some of you guys are going to see it my way, Scientist included.......I'm sensing he's wilting a bit on a few points!
:lol: :lol: :lol: :D ;)


:hi:

:lol:

[sweet_scientist]

If I remember correctly the fight was in Europe the reason Sweet pea lost was because he ran too much this style of boxing is no good in Europe.
Traditionally European judges favour slick boxing displays. However, this was being fought in Paris, where Ramirez was living and training at the time, and so he was the home town favourite. If you want to dig a little further you could say that Jose Suliaman saw the potential for an all Mexican unification fight between Ramirez and Chavez and made sure the judges favoured the aggressor. I mean, one judge had it 118-113 for Ramirez (Newton Campos). If he wasn't paid off or acting on instruction to make sure Ramirez got the nod, then I'll be damned.

[Axe]

I had Pea winning 10 rounds against Chavez. That fight wasn't even close, no matter what "the Mexican Stevie Wonder" divac would have you believe.

I had Pea winning 11 rounds against Ramirez...that said I had the Rivera fight a draw.

[Dostoevsky]

Pea clearly won that fight. Only an imbecile could argue otherwise.
He landed more and effective shots yes he backtracked but so does Mayweather,RJJ,Ali......and does that stop them from winning through effective and cleaner punches? Hell no.

Anyone who thinks Chavez won the fight should submit a round by round and we can break it down and expose them.
I doubt anyone would have the guts though....