BoxRec

i had it even. too close to call.

sg1985 wrote:

BarryWashington wrote:

sg1985 wrote:I saw this fight years ago, was the accidental headbutt given a point off by the ref?

I don't think Lane had anything to do with the point deduction on the headbutt, apparently under the WBC rules when an opponent receives an accidental headbutt the way to even things for him is to take a point away from the other fighter.

I'm not fully confident in this, but I think you only deduct a point if instructed by the ref, I'm probably wrong.

no barry is right on this. once the ref states the cut is from an accidental headbutt, the wbc rule is to take a point from the headbutter. any other organization and no point would have been taken.

I had it to Whittiker 115-113, it was quite a close fight but I did think Sweet Pea deserved the nod

What I wish could happen is every De La Hoya hater could stop laughably calling this fight a robbery. That's a fucken joke

As someone well-known here as a die-hard of both men, I scored this for De La Hoya by a point. Either man could have won, & yes, De La Hoya's rising star was the reason for the wide cards. It was tight-rope narrow...& I'm completely sick of hearing De La Hoya's many haters calling it a robbery. Morons --- Every. Single. One of them.

Regarding your point, Barry, there is a moment in round two where De La Hoya must've missed just about every one of five or six shots, while Whitaker barely shifts his position --- & De La Hoya started his assault with the jab. Just unbelievable. This fight showed that an ageing Whitaker was a greater fighter (in his hey-day) than any De La Hoya --- as wonderful as the latter could be.

I might go back & check out what Oscar said of this fight in my copy of American Son, after this.

Whitaker got way too much credit for clowning around and being a spoiling dickhead in this fight. I gave it to DLH by at least a couple of rounds because Whitaker mostly just tried to fight on the backfoot and spoil. Leaning backward and walking to your corner like you're wobbled freneticaally after the bell doesn't score points with me.

9-3 Whitaker, I'll be the first to call it a robbery. Horribly judged fight, no way in the world Oscar won that fight.

awful fight, ruined mostly by Whitaker, i've scored it to DLH by 1 or 3 points depending how much Pernell irritates me.

Counter-puncher wrote:awful fight, ruined mostly by Whitaker, i've scored it to DLH by 1 or 3 points depending how much Pernell irritates me.

People talk about Whitaker like he pulled a Holmes-Marvis Frazier on DLH. Fact is Whitaker fought like a ackass because the only chance in hell he had winning was to make Oscar look bad than to make himself look good by actually throwing punches with intent.

its a fight that's always disappointed me, on both fighters' behalf

Diamond WEAPON wrote:

Counter-puncher wrote:awful fight, ruined mostly by Whitaker, i've scored it to DLH by 1 or 3 points depending how much Pernell irritates me.

People talk about Whitaker like he pulled a Holmes-Marvis Frazier on DLH. Fact is Whitaker fought like a ackass because the only chance in hell he had winning was to make Oscar look bad than to make himself look good by actually throwing punches with intent.

He threw more punches than Oscar did.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

Diamond WEAPON wrote:

Counter-puncher wrote:awful fight, ruined mostly by Whitaker, i've scored it to DLH by 1 or 3 points depending how much Pernell irritates me.

People talk about Whitaker like he pulled a Holmes-Marvis Frazier on DLH. Fact is Whitaker fought like a ackass because the only chance in hell he had winning was to make Oscar look bad than to make himself look good by actually throwing punches with intent.

He threw more punches than Oscar did.

And I bet Joe Calzaghe was inspired by the performance.

I scored it years ago with Whitaker winning by a round I believe it was.

Very close fight . .to call it a blatant robbery is way off-base. Oscar wasn't landing much but Whitaker was fighting a spoiling fight and many of his punches had nothing on them.

Diamond WEAPON wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

Diamond WEAPON wrote:

People talk about Whitaker like he pulled a Holmes-Marvis Frazier on DLH. Fact is Whitaker fought like a ackass because the only chance in hell he had winning was to make Oscar look bad than to make himself look good by actually throwing punches with intent.

He threw more punches than Oscar did.

And I bet Joe Calzaghe was inspired by the performance.

Don't act like Oscar was landing anything significant. Whitaker threw more and landed more, easy fight to score. As for the fight, Merchant summed it up during Oscar's ridiculous entrance. "This sucks!"

He landed more but also landed to less effect. It's like all those people who act like Winky Wright got robbed against Jermain Taylor because he landed more shots despite the obvious fact that Taylor's were far harder.

I agree on taylor/Wright, Oscar was barely landing anything at all. He got schooled.

its one of the 3 or maybe 4 fights that would strongly back up any claims to Oscar's lack of ring intelligence

I scored it ages ago, I have it as 115-113 Pernell.
This is in an old book I used to keep scores on when
I was living at home, If I re watch the fight now I
may score different, as I was 18-19 when I did this
fight.

I do recall it being close and interesting to score.

Haven't watched it in years.
Last time I did I had Oscar De La Hoya the winner fairly comfortably.

De La Hoya is without a doubt one of the most overrated fighters in boxing history.

If those judges were more appreciative of skill vs aggression, it would have gone the other way. One round either way for that fight could not be considered a robbery. It was that close.

bjermaine wrote:

sg1985 wrote:

BarryWashington wrote: I don't think Lane had anything to do with the point deduction on the headbutt, apparently under the WBC rules when an opponent receives an accidental headbutt the way to even things for him is to take a point away from the other fighter.

I'm not fully confident in this, but I think you only deduct a point if instructed by the ref, I'm probably wrong.

no barry is right on this. once the ref states the cut is from an accidental headbutt, the wbc rule is to take a point from the headbutter. any other organization and no point would have been taken.

Wow, I did not know this, one learn's some thing new every day, thanks guys.
I haven't seen this fight, must track it down and watch it.

lucaselrey wrote:De La Hoya is without a doubt one of the most overrated fighters in boxing history.

I haven't seen all of your posts since you've joined today, but the ones that I've come across have one thing in common, the're all negative and from a Troll.

A troll? what is this a forum for Lord Of The Rings? tell me how he was great or even kind of an elite fighter. u "DRAGON".

lucaselrey wrote:A troll? what is this a forum for Lord Of The Rings? tell me how he was great or even kind of an elite fighter. u "DRAGON".

Dragon Nice.

lucaselrey wrote:De La Hoya is without a doubt one of the most overrated fighters in boxing history.

I see truth in these words, though perhaps not the way in which you mean.

Dempsey, Louis, Marciano,Ali, Robinson, Duran, Tyson DLH, SRL, FMJ, PacMan, have something in common. They caught the imagination of the media and the public. So they are all over rated in so far as their abilities vs the top tier. I think most of us here understand that they are not as "above the frey" as their general public reputations might lead you to believe. So it would be pretty impossible for them NOT to be "over rated", since almost everyone whether they follow boxing or not will offer up a "rating" for these fighters. Mostly because they are the fighters they actually know about.

However, I think forums such as this tend to inch closer to the truth about these differences. As you see, almost any "legend" is critiqued within boxing forums, and it almost becomes a myopic search to discuss and determine weaknesses. Nothing wrong with that. But it sort of renders your statement impotent. After giving it a go within any thread, many of us here will push back and remind us all just WHY these fighters became media sensations, and it almost always has to do with the FACT that these fighters were overall the cream of the crop. These "give and takes" follow each other like night and day.

In my decade and a half of witnessing these discussions on this board, the biggest "magnets" for these "viral" arguments have centered around the names I listed above.
I may have missed a name or two, I'm sure the regulars will fill in the gaps. And I doubt many will disagree with this general statement.

There's nothing wrong with it, but it still amazes me that a newcomer will often believe that they are the first to discover gravity because some truth just happened to have fallen into their lap.