BoxRec

Posted: **07 Jan 2013, 14:10**

Il Duce wrote:1979

Strange year for Bantamweights -

Guadalupe 'Lupe' Pintor

Sunday - June 3, 1979,

#1 WBC Bantamweight Lupe Pintor wins WBC Bantamweight Championship over Champion - Carlos Zarate
in a highly controversial decision in Las Vegas.

Lupe, a friend and former stablemate of Carlos Zarate, moves over to Zarate's Manager, Arturo 'Cuyo' Hernandez
immediately after winning the Championship, amidst rumors of foul play on '2' of the Judges scorecard
(Art Lurie and Harold Buck), and back room manipulation.

Bob Martin who scored the bout for Carlos Zarate (too wide of a margin) gets suspended by the Nevada State
Boxing Commission over his bizare scorecard.

The WBC mandates and 'immediate rematch', and within 90-Days.

Lupe Pintor and Carlos Zarate are scheduled to have a rematch. (Bout set for Sunday - September 2, 1979).

Carlos Zarate will not sign 'lock-up' contract with former Manager Artuor 'Cuyo' Hernandez, to get the rematch bout
with Lupe Pintor, who is now managed by Cuyo Hernandez. Rematch is postponed 6-weeks.

Lupe Pintor has a non-title bout in Mexico, on Friday - October 5, 1979, to stay sharp while waiting for Carlos Zarate to
decide if he wants to continue.
Friday - October 5 - Lupe Pintor (KO 1) Torito Melendez

The Lupe Pintor vs. Carlos Zarate rematch is re-set for Saturday - October 20, 1979.

Carlos Zarate refuses to sign contract with Arturo 'Cuyo' Hernandez, and the Championship Bout is put on hold.

The WBC still keeps Carlos Zarate as the #1 Bantamweight.

Lupe has $150,000 waiting for him as a fight purse for his Title Defense against Zarate, but Carlos and brother Jorge
won't budge in contract negotiations, and still refuse to accept a $50,000 fight purse as the Challenger.

Don Fraser, California Fight Matchmaker, gets into the fray, and tries to put together what could be an exciting match,
between WBC Champion - Lupe Pintor vs. #2 WBC Alfonso Zamora (former WBA Bantamweight Champion), while
#1 WBC Carlos Zarate decides if he wants to fight again.

And only "rumors"; never actual evidence.

Posted: **07 Jan 2013, 14:50**

Il Duce wrote:WBC Banatmweigt Rankings (November 1979)

Champion - Lupe Pintor

#1.....Carlos Zarate
#2.....Alfonso Zamora
#3.....Alberto Davila
#4.....Roberto Rubaldino
#5.....Leo Randolph
#6.....Oscar Muniz
#7.....Eijiro Murata
#8.....Jeff Chandler
#9.....Alberto Sandoval
#10...Rafael Pena
#11...Eddie Logan

The Saturday - October 20, 1979 WBC Championship bout between Champion - Lupe Pintor vs. #1 Carlos Zarate
is again 'postponed' for the second time.

Because of Zarate, yes.

Posted: **07 Jan 2013, 15:23**

Il Duce wrote:Yes,

Carlos and Brother Jorge held everything up. And the WBC (Jose Suliaman) would not allow Lupe Pintor
to squeeze in a Title Defense in the interim, until the he fought Carlos Zarate.

So, Phil Villareal (Lupe's Pintor Co-Manager) had Lupe take another non-title bout, so he would remain
in training and stay close to top physical condition.

Monday - October 29, 1969 (Arena Ciudad - Ciudad Obregon, Sonora)

Lupe at 41-4-0 (33 KO's) fought 'old nemisis', 29 year-old - Jose Luis Soto 46-9-1 (16 KO's) in an over-the-weight bout.

Jose Luis Soto, a 5' 10" bean-pole', had upset Lupe Pintor by 10-Round Decision back in June 1978.
Soto, since defeating Lupe, had gone 3-3-0, including suffering '3' knockout losses.

Lupe, as usual, fought tentative and lackadaisical over the first 6-Rounds, before opening up and sweeping
the last 4-Rounds, to win an unimpressive 10-Round Unanimous Decision.

Glad Zarate stopped holding everything up, allowing Pintor to defend his title.

Posted: **09 Jan 2013, 20:16**

Il Duce wrote:It was Arturo 'Cuyo' Hernandez who scripted this.

He was the Manager for both fighters, but released them prior to the bout (on paper only).

Stop with your "scripted"/fixed nonsense when there's no evidence of it.
Did you think you could just sneak that in and get away without being called out on it?
You're nothing but a conspiracy kook who spouts charges without evidence and then tries to change the subject when you're called out, and then who tries to bring up old threads and do the same thing (spout the baseless charges) days after the discussion in the thread has ended.
There's just as much evidence now as there was the first time you posted your garbage conspiracy theory--NONE.
What will you do now--start whining about some "aroma" (yes, he actually said this in another thread) of a fix?

The only aroma here is the putrid smell of all of the baseless crap you've spouted.

Posted: **09 Jan 2013, 22:50**

Il Duce wrote:No,,,,,,,

When a boxing judge like Art Lurie scores all the close rounds for the Challenger (Lupe Pintor), and
makes an after bout statement, that 'he calls them like he see's them', and that the Champion and
Challenger are on equal terms for 3-Minutes of a Round.

Yet, in the Muhammad Ali vs Leon Spinks 'I' bout, he scores the fight for Muhammad Ali 143-142,
and makes an after bout statement that, 'the Challenger must win a Round over a Champion, otherwise
the Champion gets the edge in an Even Round.'

That man, making that statement, is corrupt in judgement.

No, it shows that he's learned the error of his ways. His statement after Zarate/Pintor (over a year after Ali/Spinks I) was correct. The statement after Ali/Spinks I was foolish, yet it's still spouted by some today (that the champion must be decisively beaten).
Hopefully the NSAC made it clear to Art L. after Ali/Spinks I that his view was absolutely incorrect and that the identity of the champion v. the challenger is irrelevant when scoring a fight.
Another pathetic swing and a miss.
Keep trying.

Posted: **10 Jan 2013, 14:13**

Il Duce wrote:No,

That was a perfectly landed counter-punch, square on the chops.

Art Lurie makes up his own rules, when scoring a round.

The Champion gets the benefit of an 'even round', only if his name is Muhammad Ali.

No, it was another woeful swing and a miss by you.
Over a year passed between those fights. Lurie made public comments advocating an incorrect scoring philosophy (that whether one is the champion has a bearing on the scoring of a round--which it doesn't).
He learned from the error of his ways, and that's the only thing you've shown.
Keep flailing, kook. You have *ZERO* evidence, as you conceded with your pathetic "aroma" of a fix nonsense. Pack it in.

Posted: **10 Jan 2013, 14:52**

Il Duce wrote:The Oakland Tribune Scorecard, one of the most well-respected newspaper boxing reporting staff at that time.

Thru 5-Rounds.

Carlos Zarate......10 - 9 - 10 - 10 - 10 = 49
Lupe Pintor..........9 - 10 - 8 ---9 -- 9- = 45

Art Lurie and Harold Buck

Carlo Zarate........9 - 9 - 10 - 10 - 10 = 48
Lupe Pintor........10 - 10 - 9 -- 8 -- 9- = 46

Hard to figure scoring Round 1 for Lupe Pintor, as he did virtually nothing other than follow Carlos Zarate
around. Couldn't argue with an 'Even Round' though, but the Champion did edge it out.

Nice non-response to my decimation of your "counter punch."

Newsflash, genius:
Disagreeing with the Oakland Tribune isn't evidence of corruption.
Keep pathetically flailing away.

Posted: **10 Jan 2013, 15:09**

Rover wrote:
Il Duce wrote:The Oakland Tribune Scorecard, one of the most well-respected newspaper boxing reporting staff at that time.

Thru 5-Rounds.

Carlos Zarate......10 - 9 - 10 - 10 - 10 = 49
Lupe Pintor..........9 - 10 - 8 ---9 -- 9- = 45

Art Lurie and Harold Buck

Carlo Zarate........9 - 9 - 10 - 10 - 10 = 48
Lupe Pintor........10 - 10 - 9 -- 8 -- 9- = 46

Hard to figure scoring Round 1 for Lupe Pintor, as he did virtually nothing other than follow Carlos Zarate
around. Couldn't argue with an 'Even Round' though, but the Champion did edge it out.
Nice non-response to my decimation of your "counter punch."

Newsflash, genius:
Disagreeing with the Oakland Tribune isn't evidence of corruption.
BTW, looks like you've erred again.
Lurie scored the first round 10-9 Pintor.
Buck had it 10-10.
Martin scored it 10-8 Zarate.
Source: Royce Fiore, Las Vegas Review-Journal.
So now we have two well-respected writers, Lee Groves and Royce Fiore, disagreeing with "facts" presented by you regarding the scorecards of this fight...just in the first four rounds!
Guess the first round blows away your argument that Buck and Lurie scored all 15 rounds identically.
I think I'll trust the reporting of Fiore and Groves over yours.
BTW, Fiore also reported that Martin scored the fourth 10-6 for Zarate, which you've repeatedly denied.
Keep pathetically flailing away.

Posted: **10 Jan 2013, 15:11**

Il Duce wrote:Round 6,

The first true 'razor close round',

The Oakland Tribune scored it for Carlos Zarate (10-9)

The 'Corrupt Duo' Art Lurie and Harold Buck scored it for Lupe Pintor (10-9).

I just scored a 'Standing 8-Count'.

Another post where you idiotically claim corruption with your sole support being the scorecard of the Oakland Tribune.

Keep hurling yourself wildly into more idiotic displays.

Posted: **10 Jan 2013, 15:15**

Il Duce wrote:Round 6,

The first true 'razor close round',

The Oakland Tribune scored it for Carlos Zarate (10-9)

The 'Corrupt Duo' Art Lurie and Harold Buck scored it for Lupe Pintor (10-9).

I just scored a 'Standing 8-Count'.

And once again you run right into a perfect shot:
You describe the round as "razor close." You then argue that the scoring of it is evidence of corruption.

I'm loving this.
Come on. Keep playing.

Posted: **10 Jan 2013, 15:19**

Let's see if Il Duce is intelligent enough finally to grasp that disagreement with the Oakland Tribune isn't evidence of corruption, especially in "razor close" rounds.

Posted: **10 Jan 2013, 15:48**

Il Duce wrote:Even Chris Schenkel had Round 6 'Even'.

Besides being an excellent fight announcer, he was a better scoring judge than either Lurie or Buck.

Round 7, Lupe fought a little better, as he was setting down on his punches, but Carlos slowly took over
in the second-half of the round, and rattled Lupe with a big right uppercut near the end of the Round,
that drove him into a neutral-corner slightly dazed.

Round 7 for Carlos Zarate (10-9) socred by the Oakland Tribune.

Apparently Il Duce is not intelligent enough to grasp that disagreement with the Oakland Tribune isn't evidence of corruption.
Question: What exactly does providing the score of Schenkel show?
Answer: It confirms that the sixth was "razor close"!

Posted: **10 Jan 2013, 15:53**

Il Duce wrote:Correct,

A round that close, cannot be scored for the Challenger. Just ask Muhammad Ali.

That view is incorrect, as this fight shows Lurie learned. It isn't a logical argument that one should continue doing something incorrectly to be consistent with past behavior.
Lurie's scoring philosophy had been incorrect, and this fight shows it was reformed.
And that has nothing to do with Buck.
Try again.

Posted: **10 Jan 2013, 15:58**

Let's now see if Il Duce is intelligent enough to grasp simple logic:
Incorrect behavior in the past isn't a justification for continuing that clearly incorrect behavior.
If it were, we just might have separate but equal in this country.
Of course, Il Duce still can't quite grasp the simple point that disagreement with the Oakland Tribune isn't evidence of corruption, so maybe I'm asking too much of poor, dimwitted kook Il Duce.

Posted: **10 Jan 2013, 16:07**

Another thing Il Duce apparently doesn't get:
The "you've gotta beat the champ clearly" incorrect scoring philosophy has nothing to do with Ali.
I recently watched the Vazquez/Canizales bout where Larry Merchant foolishly stated that if the fight took place in the era where the challenger had to beat the champ, Canizales would've been losing clearly, but in the current era he might eek it out if he won the last two rounds.
See, Il Duce?
Nothing to do with Ali.
I am soooooo glad that Lurie was disabused of that incorrect notion.
Fortunately, we're seeing less and less of that idiocy being spewed these days.
As Steve Farhood accurately put it, once the bell rings, there is no champion as far as judging is concerned; it only becomes relevant in the case of a draw or NC, in which case the champion would retain the title.

Posted: **10 Jan 2013, 16:29**

Il Duce wrote:No,

That was a perfectly landed counter-punch, square on the chops.

Art Lurie makes up his own rules, when scoring a round.

The Champion gets the benefit of an 'even round', only if his name is Muhammad Ali.

See how good ole logic allowed me to evade that attempted "counter-punch, square on the chops"?
Logic smashes Il Duce's pathetic argument, square on the chops.

And unfortunately Lurie wasn't making up "his own rules." That moronic scoring philosophy was parroted even by Larry Merchant years later, as I've shown, though it's finally seemingly disappearing. Glad Lurie was reformed long ago.
Damn, the aroma of logic smells gooooooooood!

Posted: **10 Jan 2013, 17:05**

Il Duce wrote:Art Lurie and Harold Buck had to make excuses for their scorecards, as they were adjusted.

They were told which way to lean,,,,,,,watch the tape of the fight, and you can see both Judges
turn and looking towards the WBC table at the end of each round, to be cue'd on scoring.

No honest judge could have scored that bout for Lupe Pintor.

I'll go with the Oakland Tribune, honest newspaper account.

At the end of 7-Rounds, Carlos was ahead 69-63 (6-1-0 in Rounds)

Another post without a shred of evidence. The ABC broadcast had commercials between most of the rounds.
Your "to be cued on scoring" is more nonsense. Prove it.
Keep flailing; try to land more "perfect counter-punch[es] square on the chops."

Posted: **10 Jan 2013, 17:12**

In the world of Il Duce, it appears as though disagreement with the Oakland Tribune equals corruption.
Hence, logic tells me that since Schenkel had the sixth even, whereas the Oakland Tribune scored it for Zarate, that must mean that Schenkel is (was--RIP, Chris) corrupt!
Screwy, I know, but it's Il Duce we're dealing with here.

Posted: **10 Jan 2013, 17:46**

Il Duce wrote:I have the entire ABC-TV fight, without commercial interuption.

You could clearly see Art Lurie looking at the WBC table at ringside after every round,
before he handed his scorecard to Mills Lane (Referee).

I couldn't care less where Lurie looked. And what about Buck? I notice you don't say you clearly see Lurie being "cued."
There are things that only Il Duce sees.

And if he were doing it after *every* round, it shows how meaningless it is. See round 4. Don't think there were any cues needed there.

I can't wait to see what pitiful argument you'll throw out there next.

Posted: **10 Jan 2013, 19:29**

Il Duce wrote:What are you blind Rover,,,,,,,,,,

Look at Art Lurie,,,,,,,,,,,,the guy looked guilty.

Even after Round 8, a round that Lupe clearly won, he still looked over for direction.

"looked guilty"?
Christ, is that the best you can do?
Did Buck look guilty, too?

This is getting more and more pathetic with every feeble argument you make.
Although at least you haven't (yet) claimed that Lurie had an "aroma" of guilt.
Hope I haven't given you any ideas.
You're scraping the bottom of the barrel now.

Posted: **10 Jan 2013, 19:48**

Il Duce wrote:Actually that was a 'teaser',

Because Round 8 was another razor-close Round.

Though Lupe landed a good hard left that shook Carlos up just past the mid-way point in the Round,
Carlos was the better puncher during the last third of the Round, and landed his own sharp punches
that snapped Lupe's head back.

Oakland Tribune scored it 'Even' (10-10).

Ah, I see you've gone away from your "looked guilty" nonsense and have scurried back to the Oakland Tribune.
You're only teasing yourself.
Your stupidity does amuse me, though.
You're so foolish that you can't grasp that disagreeing with the Oakland Tribune isn't evidence of corruption.

Let's keep going as you recap how the Oakland Tribune scored rounds 9-15, even though that isn't evidence of corruption.

Posted: **10 Jan 2013, 20:08**

Il Duce wrote:Do you mean, with your intelligence you can't figure out something is not copacetic.

It's not like a corrupt boxing judge is going to tell you about it. He does it was a subtle quality.

A Boxing Judge who follows orders, gets to judge another day,,,,,,and enjoys the perks.

Ah, so now you've gone from the pitiful "looked guilty" to the equally pathetic "something is not copacetic"?
Is this really the best you have?
Lord, you grow more empty post by post.
Another feeble post sans a SHRED of evidence. Keep playing, kook.

Posted: **10 Jan 2013, 20:34**

Il Duce wrote:International Boxing Magazine,,

Scored it (146-140) 9-4-2 in Rounds for Carlos,,,,,,,,

I guess they weren't paid off.

Another pitiful comeback, but that's to be expected from a kook who can offer ZERO evidence.
Disagreement with International Boxing Magazine isn't evidence of corruption, either.

Posted: **11 Jan 2013, 12:06**

Il Duce wrote:Scorecard thru 10-Rounds.

The Oakland Tribune.

Carlos Zarate... 10 - 9 - 10 - 10 - 10.......10 - 10 - 10 - 10 - 9 == {98}
Lupe Pintor...... 9 - 10 - 9 -- 8 -- 9.......... 9 -- 9 -- 9 --10 -10 == {92}

Or 7-2-1 in Rounds (Though rounds.....1 and 6 also could have been scored 'Even')

The only 'solid' rounds Lupe Pintor had were, Rounds 2 and 10. Rounds 1, 6, 8 and 9 were
there for him to win, but he just didn't land enough good punches.

Lupe did wobble Carlos in Round 10, by landing a good counter left hook at the 2:12 Mark,
but Carlos quickly recovered. Both boxers looked 'fresh' after the 10th Round.

You still don't grasp that disagreement with the Oakland Tribune isn't evidence of corruption?

Posted: **11 Jan 2013, 12:16**

Il Duce wrote:Rover,

Corruption, explain

Just how do you see it or recognize it ?

1. Nothing you've presented indicates that here.
2. Actual evidence, like the tapes presented of IBF ratings being literally bought.
3. Disagreement with media outlets isn't evidence of it. Teddy Atlas's rant last week was pathetic after Barthelemy/Usmanee.
4. He "looked guilty" isn't evidence, either.
You have done nothing but spout empty charges like the fight was "scripted," "fixed," or that the judges were "paid off."
You have presented not one shred of evidence of that through nearly six pages in this thread.
But if you want to keep playing, fine; I'll call you out every time you miserably fail.
This discussion had ended *days* ago, but you decided you wanted to try one last gasp, apparently moronically thinking that posting the card of the Oakland Tribune would somehow be the smoking gun of evidence.
So now that I have decimated every argument you've made (and my favorite was that "perfectly landed counter-punch, square on the chops" that was annihilated by simple logic), you come back and ask what evidence would satisfy me?
Here's a hint: If it existed, we'd have heard about it by now, as proving judges had been paid off in a fight like that would've been huge news. People love scandals; just look at how famous Collins/Resto was, and that wasn't even a big fight, unlike this one, which was nationally televised.
Yeah, I have no doubt that if Zarate's people had actual evidence of this "corruption," they'd have presented it.
Of course, "he looked guilty" wouldn't exactly have stood them in good stead, now would it have?

This will end when you want it to, but I'll keep shredding you as long as you like.
Let's see if you *finally* grasp that spouting what the Oakland Tribune wrote is evidence of nothing except that the Oakland Tribune scored the fight a particular way.

BoxRec

Carlos Zarate vs. Lupe Pintor 'The Controversy'

Re: Carlos Zarate vs. Lupe Pintor 'The Controversy'

Re: Carlos Zarate vs. Lupe Pintor 'The Controversy'

Re: Carlos Zarate vs. Lupe Pintor 'The Controversy'

Re: Carlos Zarate vs. Lupe Pintor 'The Controversy'

Re: Carlos Zarate vs. Lupe Pintor 'The Controversy'

Re: Carlos Zarate vs. Lupe Pintor 'The Controversy'

Re: Carlos Zarate vs. Lupe Pintor 'The Controversy'

Re: Carlos Zarate vs. Lupe Pintor 'The Controversy'

Re: Carlos Zarate vs. Lupe Pintor 'The Controversy'

Re: Carlos Zarate vs. Lupe Pintor 'The Controversy'

Re: Carlos Zarate vs. Lupe Pintor 'The Controversy'

Re: Carlos Zarate vs. Lupe Pintor 'The Controversy'

Re: Carlos Zarate vs. Lupe Pintor 'The Controversy'

Re: Carlos Zarate vs. Lupe Pintor 'The Controversy'

Re: Carlos Zarate vs. Lupe Pintor 'The Controversy'

Re: Carlos Zarate vs. Lupe Pintor 'The Controversy'

Re: Carlos Zarate vs. Lupe Pintor 'The Controversy'

Re: Carlos Zarate vs. Lupe Pintor 'The Controversy'

Re: Carlos Zarate vs. Lupe Pintor 'The Controversy'

Re: Carlos Zarate vs. Lupe Pintor 'The Controversy'

Re: Carlos Zarate vs. Lupe Pintor 'The Controversy'

Re: Carlos Zarate vs. Lupe Pintor 'The Controversy'

Re: Carlos Zarate vs. Lupe Pintor 'The Controversy'

Re: Carlos Zarate vs. Lupe Pintor 'The Controversy'

Re: Carlos Zarate vs. Lupe Pintor 'The Controversy'