FARHOOD on Chavez / Whitaker

[Rover]

There's no way Chavez won this fight. WTF. Isn't this considered one of the most outrageous decisions in history?

You bet. Why somebody put this in CS is also quite puzzling, as this fight occurred almost two decades ago.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Whitaker was a thing of beauty.

Had he had sturdier hands he probably would have won most of his fights by TKO.

[Rover]

The art of slipping, running, holding, and moving was basically created by the african american boxer and therefore many american blow by blow guys like kellerman have a heavy bias towards this style. Many guys like Kellerman will go crazy if a guy jabs and proceeds to do a shake a back and a rope a dope before running across the ring. However, in other cultures this may be as well regarded as in the United States. In the US, there is so much bias towards this style that the term "ineffective aggression" has been well coined and well documented. However, the term "ineffective boxing" has yet to be mentioned. I like trout but throwing 150 flickering jabs, of which none land is hardly impressive.

As for whitaker, he was more "difficutlt to beat" than "great." In a gestalt, his losses against Ramirez and De La Hoya as well as his draw vs chavez are well deserved because you cant simply backpeddle, hold, run, and expect to win all your fights. His fights against against some of the most exciting fighters in history (e.g Chaves and Nelson) are some of the most boring exhibitions in the history of boxing because for the most part swet pea fought "not to lose" instead of fighting to win.

I have to agree wholeheartedly with Luckybattles, Whitaker was one of the worst fighters to watch in the history of boxing. The only time I watched him was in the hopes that he would get beat. Trout isn't quite as bad, but he's working on it. Too many fighters get credit for throwing punches that never land or are blocked. Wasn't all that impressed with Canello but he got the job done.

Didn't Willie Pep popularize the whole defensive style when Sandy Saddler was trying to knock his head off?

Let me get stupid too. Since you want to make it cultural ... I think the follow a guy around and land one hard punch two times a round an then claim you won was created by the white boxers who couldn't compete with Jack Johnson and Sugar Ray Robinson. Knowing that they would never match the footwork and accuracy of "certain fighters", they created a way of scoring fights that highlighted their swing for the fences fight style ... that almost always results in a loss against skilled fighters.

What makes me laugh is that when a non-black fighter like Nonito, Khan, Finito, Calzaghe or Canelo uses the defensive style which is now attributed to blacks, they are lauded for improving their "boxing skills". But when a black guy fights like that, all the stereotypes above come into play. Racist much?

Illustrating absurdity with absurdity...I like it.

[giacomino]

Ramirez v Whitaker, IMO, wasn't competitive. Sweet Pea easily won
I was a big Chavez fan, but I thought Whitaker won something like 117-111. Didn't think it was particularly close and the decision was ludicrous.
Can't remember exactly how I scored DLH v Whitaker, but I remember thinking DLH nicked it, barely. I realize that goes against the common thinking on here, but I thought DLH won a close decision, even though Sweet Pea fought remarkably well considering his age and the fact that he was going against a highly skilled, fast guy. DLH was never anybody I rooted for much but I thought, like Whitaker, people shat on his skills and tended to underrate him. Whitaker in his prime beat DLH all day. He was a fornicating marvel to watch, whether you liked him and his style or not