BoxRec

Posted: **18 Jan 2011, 22:33**

as some might know i have started a new boxing blog dedicated to judging fights. I have already posted on the british part of boxrec about the above fight and why im doing the blog.

http://boxingscorecard.blogspot.com/

comments are always welcome and there is a weblink to the actual fight

this fight i think was the worst judged in history. Whitaker totally dominated the fight , i had it 118-110. I did a bit of research and the winner of this fight was supposed to fight julio cesar chavez next. Lou duva went mad as usual saying it was a wbc carve up and i agree.

whitaker vs chavez at that stage of their careers would have been a better fight than the one they had years later although i would still think sweet pea would have won.

Posted: **19 Jan 2011, 00:43**

i remember reading about this fight when i first got interested in boxing in the early 90s. Honestly the 2 judges that scored it for ramirez should have been banned from the sport.

Posted: **19 Jan 2011, 00:45**

Havent watched this fight in awhile.

Either way 118-110 or 119-109 was the ballpark I had it at the time.

'The Pea' got shafted very badly in that fight.

The judging was baffling, nothing new there

Posted: **19 Jan 2011, 06:34**

Who cares? Whitaker was horrible.

Posted: **19 Jan 2011, 09:58**

bennie wrote:Who cares? Whitaker was horrible.

I ahve to say that I partly agree. Whittaker was a great fighter but who could enjoy watching him fight?

Posted: **19 Jan 2011, 10:05**

Ezzard wrote:
bennie wrote:Who cares? Whitaker was horrible.
I ahve to say that I partly agree. Whittaker was a great fighter but who could enjoy watching him fight?

I loved watching him fight. Not many elite fighters threw that many punches. Great body puncher and flawless defensively. I don't watch many replays because his fights were so one sided. But I loved them live. Nowadays I watch stuff like Hurtado and Rivera more than his genius at Lightweight.

Posted: **19 Jan 2011, 10:12**

I'll watch him anyday, frankly. If you can't appreciate what you're seeing, I feel bad for you. It's like all those people who call Benitez boring...get the hell out of here. Do these people even understand what they're witnessing? Probably not.

Posted: **19 Jan 2011, 10:25**

Goodnight, Irene wrote:I'll watch him anyday, frankly. If you can't appreciate what you're seeing, I feel bad for you. It's like all those people who call Benitez boring...get the hell out of here. Do these people even understand what they're witnessing? Probably not.

Agreed, Malignaggi is boring. Whitaker, on average, threw more punches than Pac does.

Posted: **19 Jan 2011, 10:33**

Goodnight, Irene wrote:I'll watch him anyday, frankly. If you can't appreciate what you're seeing, I feel bad for you. It's like all those people who call Benitez boring...get the hell out of here. Do these people even understand what they're witnessing? Probably not.

You'll have to enlighten me. What was I witnessing?

Seriously, I don't like watching anything that is uncompetitive - pointless.

I do appreciate what a fine boxer he was.

Posted: **19 Jan 2011, 10:35**

Ezzard wrote:
Goodnight, Irene wrote:I'll watch him anyday, frankly. If you can't appreciate what you're seeing, I feel bad for you. It's like all those people who call Benitez boring...get the hell out of here. Do these people even understand what they're witnessing? Probably not.
You'll have to enlighten me. What was I witnessing?

Seriously, I don't like watching anything that is uncompetitive - pointless.

I do appreciate what a fine boxer he was.

Fair, I watched Hurtado again the other day. That's my favorite one, even though he is past it. I'm just opposed to his style being "boring". But that's in the eye of the beholder. Some people enjoy Klitshcko fights where as I would rather watch Pernell take a dump than endure one of their fights.

Posted: **19 Jan 2011, 10:39**

Yes, Hurtado was his best moment. That fight proved to me that if Pernell had been in with a Gans, Benny Leonard or Duran that he had the mentality to win even if he had been on the losing side for much of it...

Posted: **19 Jan 2011, 12:38**

i have the whitaker career set and yes he did win many fights by a wide margin but it wasnt againt crap fights , he totally dominated azuma nelson early in his career and a more than decent fight was againt roger mayweather.

at lightweight he could have been champion for years

whitaker was a legend , as mentioned i put that ramirez fight on my blog because ive never seen such a one-sided fight been given to the wrong fighter

Posted: **19 Jan 2011, 13:19**

I can't see how people can say he's boring, he's a defensive genius, his jab is superb and his body shots were lethal, I haven't seen a guy as skilled as him! He had everything and occasionally made it look easy.

Posted: **19 Jan 2011, 17:11**

alex i agree his jab was constant and his workrate was excellent

in a fight between whitaker and floyd mayweather jnr i think it would be the southpaw jab and the workrate from whitaker that would win him the fight

Posted: **19 Jan 2011, 17:57**

Agreed,Pea routinely tossed out 80 punches a round. One thing that could equal matters is Floyd's right hand scoring a few flash knock downs. But I have confidence that Pea would find a way to win.

Posted: **19 Jan 2011, 18:08**

bennie wrote:Who cares? Whitaker was horrible.

bennie, say it aint so. You stand by these words?

Posted: **19 Jan 2011, 18:15**

bennie wrote:Who cares? Whitaker was horrible.

Posted: **19 Jan 2011, 19:34**

BarryWashington wrote:Training for the time I have it makes you look at the game differently and learn to admire and appreciate the things some technical boxers do, rather than the "crowd favorite".

Barry, how long have you been training and how many fights have you had?

Posted: **20 Jan 2011, 18:37**

BarryWashington wrote:
Collins2000 wrote:
BarryWashington wrote:Training for the time I have it makes you look at the game differently and learn to admire and appreciate the things some technical boxers do, rather than the "crowd favorite".
Barry, how long have you been training and how many fights have you had?
No fights yet, though if I want to I would be able to participate in this year's Golden Gloves -- I think I'll opt out of that this year.

I've been training for five months now, I spar every week (or every other) and have gotten rounds with a young professional boxer and top amateur fighters, . I'll update y'all when I get some official fights (hopefully I'll have some one film it).

Posted: **21 Jan 2011, 00:54**

BarryWashington wrote:People that say Whitaker was "terrible" have never stepped in the ring (that could be a strong statement, but, how any one that's seriously boxed and could stand by that is simply close-minded). Training for the time I have it makes you look at the game differently and learn to admire and appreciate the things some technical boxers do, rather than the "crowd favorite".

Whitaker could take any Lightweight at his peak and make it a 50/50 battle, or even possibly win all of them. That is my opinion, and I think if you study enough tapes of Leonard, Duran, Gans, & Whitaker (& etc). You can see that Whitaker could very well frustrate the eff out of them. Nothing worse for a fighter to keep being hit in the middle of their rhythm and have to keep constantly moving and having punches coming at you from all angles at an intense speed.

Anyway, back to the thread topic, again, Whitaker was robbed majorly - plain & simple.

I have been boxing for over 10 years and have had 31 amateur fights. I appreciate what master boxers like Whitaker are capable of, but that doesn't mean they are good to watch. Saying Whitaker is a terrible boxer in terms of ability is obviously ridiculous, but you can still be a boxer and think he was terrible to watch.

Posted: **25 Jan 2011, 18:28**

The great Pernell "Sweet Pea" Whitaker was bar none the greatest fighter of his generation. In the 90s, he beat almost everybody. This guy, I agree, could hang with any other great lightweight in history. He was that good. That fight with Jose Luis Ramirez (the first fight) was a highway robbery. I don't know what the judges were watching.

Pound per pound, I rank Whitaker as one of the 25 all-time best. Very unappreciated in his prime, though.

BoxRec

jose luis ramirez vs pernell whitaker 1

jose luis ramirez vs pernell whitaker 1

Re: jose luis ramirez vs pernell whitaker 1

Re: jose luis ramirez vs pernell whitaker 1

Re: jose luis ramirez vs pernell whitaker 1

Re: jose luis ramirez vs pernell whitaker 1

Re: jose luis ramirez vs pernell whitaker 1

Re: jose luis ramirez vs pernell whitaker 1

Re: jose luis ramirez vs pernell whitaker 1

Re: jose luis ramirez vs pernell whitaker 1

Re: jose luis ramirez vs pernell whitaker 1

Re: jose luis ramirez vs pernell whitaker 1

Re: jose luis ramirez vs pernell whitaker 1

Re: jose luis ramirez vs pernell whitaker 1

Re: jose luis ramirez vs pernell whitaker 1

Re: jose luis ramirez vs pernell whitaker 1

Re: jose luis ramirez vs pernell whitaker 1

Re: jose luis ramirez vs pernell whitaker 1

Re: jose luis ramirez vs pernell whitaker 1

Re: jose luis ramirez vs pernell whitaker 1

Re: jose luis ramirez vs pernell whitaker 1

Re: jose luis ramirez vs pernell whitaker 1