BoxRec

I scored it 121-105 Whitaker. I scored the 12th round 11-8 because Pernell is so awesome he should get an extra point.

Whitaker just didn't seem to be understood by the judges.

I simply don´t understand what is going on here. ODLH won not esily, but by a comfortable margin. Something like 8 to 4.

Whitaker was a great boxer, but he was already on the slide in this fight. Maybee his "habits" that later ruined him as a fighter was starting to take their toll.

Woller

Woller wrote:I simply don´t understand what is going on here. ODLH won not esily, but by a comfortable margin. Something like 8 to 4.

Whitaker was a great boxer, but he was already on the slide in this fight. Maybee his "habits" that later ruined him as a fighter was starting to take their toll.

Woller

Boxing fans/historians have an inexplicable hard-on for Pernell Whitaker, and it took so long for him to get accepted and considering that and his difficulties getting fights scored correctly previous to DLH, everyone felt "Here we go again" syndrome with the young popular phenom Oscar getting a "gift" over Whitaker.

Diamond WEAPON wrote:

Woller wrote:I simply don´t understand what is going on here. ODLH won not esily, but by a comfortable margin. Something like 8 to 4.

Whitaker was a great boxer, but he was already on the slide in this fight. Maybee his "habits" that later ruined him as a fighter was starting to take their toll.

Woller

Boxing fans/historians have an inexplicable hard-on for Pernell Whitaker, and it took so long for him to get accepted and considering that and his difficulties getting fights scored correctly previous to DLH, everyone felt "Here we go again" syndrome with the young popular phenom Oscar getting a "gift" over Whitaker.

Nobody has a bigger hard on for Whitaker than you do. I've seen you question whether he got screwed against Ramirez when he arguably won every round. You're more often than not a solid poster, I don't get why you feel the need to shit on Pernell in every thread his name comes up. And in many more when it doesn't.

^^^Nah, no way anyone can dislike Whitaker so much they'd question whether he was screwed against Ramirez. No way.

WEAPON, that isn't true, no? Ramirez absolutely lost every minute of that fight!

Absolutely true, he didn't say Ramirez deserved the decision or anything. But it was included as a "robbery" in one of his many Hitler > whitaker rants.

Well, it was a robbery. You meaning to say he included it as not a robbery, or am I reading you wrong?

Anyway, I dunno. That's crazy bias, if true. Either that, or someone is just stirring, reacting in the moment, or hasn't seen the fight in a long, looong time.

Scratch that --- anyone who sees that fight could never forget how poor the decision was. Whitaker won it absolutely unquestionably, & unforgettably. I've always said if they met, Duran would win a decision against Whitaker, while losing the actual fight --- I have absolutely zero doubt that Whitaker would have to knock Duran out to win if they ever met in a hypothetical fight, & that would never happen. No way does Whitaker win nine rounds, which is the bare minimum he would need to (in a twelve-rounder) to even contemplate a hope of getting the nod against Duran, given the relative popularity of the two.

I was just a bit pissed when I posted the "robbery" thing regarding Ramirez. I really feel more that way with regard to Chavez. Pernell's problem is he doesn't give his all in fights where if he did he'd absolutely win each of the rounds he'd won unquestionably. He adjusted his style in the second Ramirez fight and made damn sure he wouldn't be screwed in the rematch. Against Chavez though he did too much backpeddling and not enough of the flashy, head-snapping offense that he was most certainly capable of, because he seemed far more intent on not being hit than on doing damage, so there was a complete lack of balance between hitting and not getting hit, which he was frequently guilty of, especially so against DLH. I'm sure he knew Oscar could do serious damage if he hit him with a hook and he seemed so much more intent on avoiding being bombed than actually doing damage more than just pitter-patter that he lost that fight clearly but competetively imo, because at the very least his spoiling frustrated Oscar much like the way Bernard Hopkins has spent the last several years of his career when not facing a face-first brawler.

When it comes to Pernell, I simply think he's become some kind of infallible patron saint to boxing fans to unwarranted degrees, and because my opinion of him is a very unpopular one, sometimes I have fun with it and exaggerate my critiques because BOTP is somewhat lacking in humor at times.

Diamond WEAPON wrote:I was just a bit pissed when I posted the "robbery" thing regarding Ramirez. I really feel more that way with regard to Chavez. Pernell's problem is he doesn't give his all in fights where if he did he'd absolutely win each of the rounds he'd won unquestionably. He adjusted his style in the second Ramirez fight and made damn sure he wouldn't be screwed in the rematch. Against Chavez though he did too much backpeddling and not enough of the flashy, head-snapping offense that he was most certainly capable of, because he seemed far more intent on not being hit than on doing damage, so there was a complete lack of balance between hitting and not getting hit, which he was frequently guilty of, especially so against DLH. I'm sure he knew Oscar could do serious damage if he hit him with a hook and he seemed so much more intent on avoiding being bombed than actually doing damage more than just pitter-patter that he lost that fight clearly but competetively imo, because at the very least his spoiling frustrated Oscar much like the way Bernard Hopkins has spent the last several years of his career when not facing a face-first brawler.

When it comes to Pernell, I simply think he's become some kind of infallible patron saint to boxing fans to unwarranted degrees, and because my opinion of him is a very unpopular one, sometimes I have fun with it and exaggerate my critiques because BOTP is somewhat lacking in humor at times.

All fair enough, but have another look at the bodywork Pea did on JC. That was hardly, "short offense." There were times when he positively pounded on Chavez's ribcage.

Diamond WEAPON wrote:I was just a bit pissed when I posted the "robbery" thing regarding Ramirez. I really feel more that way with regard to Chavez. Pernell's problem is he doesn't give his all in fights where if he did he'd absolutely win each of the rounds he'd won unquestionably. He adjusted his style in the second Ramirez fight and made damn sure he wouldn't be screwed in the rematch. Against Chavez though he did too much backpeddling and not enough of the flashy, head-snapping offense that he was most certainly capable of, because he seemed far more intent on not being hit than on doing damage, so there was a complete lack of balance between hitting and not getting hit, which he was frequently guilty of, especially so against DLH. I'm sure he knew Oscar could do serious damage if he hit him with a hook and he seemed so much more intent on avoiding being bombed than actually doing damage more than just pitter-patter that he lost that fight clearly but competetively imo, because at the very least his spoiling frustrated Oscar much like the way Bernard Hopkins has spent the last several years of his career when not facing a face-first brawler.

When it comes to Pernell, I simply think he's become some kind of infallible patron saint to boxing fans to unwarranted degrees, and because my opinion of him is a very unpopular one, sometimes I have fun with it and exaggerate my critiques because BOTP is somewhat lacking in humor at times.

Whittaker was without doubt one of the greatest fighters of my lifetime. But I do share some of the sentiment here.

Only thing I’d say is that after career is over that’s all you have. You can’t ask whether Pernell gave his all or not. All you have is what he did.

His best wins are Chavez and Nelson. Another two of the greatest of my lifetime but Whittaker had physical advantages over both men. The fights I’d have loved to have seen would have been Camacho and Meldrick Taylor who I think style and size-wise would have been much more competitive with him.

I think he’s the best fighter of the era between Ray Leonard and Manny Pacquaio.

I remember reading that Whitaker toyed with Camacho sparring before he ever turned pro.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:I remember reading that Whitaker toyed with Camacho sparring before he ever turned pro.

Interesting. I know Zab Judah was being hyped largely off the fact that as an amateur he was outboxing Whitaker frequently in sparring before the '96 Olympics that he wouldn't make due to David Diaz of all people.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:I remember reading that Whitaker toyed with Camacho sparring before he ever turned pro.

I've heard it said on forums too. Whittaker could make anyone look bad especially if they weren't prepared for him.

He's a greater fighter than Hector but I still think it would be a close fight.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:I remember reading that Whitaker toyed with Camacho sparring before he ever turned pro.

worth noting that Pea had a fairly pro-type style even in the amateurs, hence him going toe-to-toe with his Olympic semifinal opponent when behind and smashing 9 bags of crap out of his body, then doing the same to his Olympic final opponent who had i believe it was 2 standing 8 counts administered from bodyshots.

Diamond WEAPON wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:I remember reading that Whitaker toyed with Camacho sparring before he ever turned pro.

Interesting. I know Zab Judah was being hyped largely off the fact that as an amateur he was outboxing Whitaker frequently in sparring before the '96 Olympics that he wouldn't make due to David Diaz of all people.

I've never heard that before.