BoxRec

I watched the Whitaker vs Chavez fight last night and was astounded that the judges scored the bout a draw.

I had Whitaker winning 116-113 and I felt he could have even been up by another point.

What were your scores?

Why does Whitaker always seem to be on the wrong end of decisions?

I guess his tactical genius wasn't much appreciated.

LMAO, "Whitaker always gets robbed" because he dicked around too much in a lot of his fights. He was the most negative fighter in history, and preferred to make his opponents look bad rather than make himself look good. He made Bernard Hopkins look like Jack Dempsey.

I haven't scored the fight in a while but I believe I had it somewhere in the 7-5 or 8-4 range as far as rounds won.

Don't even get me started on his fight with De La Hoya, Oscar won that shit going away and Pernell had the audacity to say he won 10 out of 12 rounds when he pretty much did nothing but clown around and act like a jackass to the point that Emmanuel Augustus would probably wonder what the hell his issue was.

BarryWashington wrote:

Diamond WEAPON wrote:LMAO, "Whitaker always gets robbed" because he dicked around too much in a lot of his fights. He was the most negative fighter in history, and preferred to make his opponents look bad rather than make himself look good. He made Bernard Hopkins look like Jack Dempsey.

I haven't scored the fight in a while but I believe I had it somewhere in the 7-5 or 8-4 range as far as rounds won.

Don't even get me started on his fight with De La Hoya, Oscar won that shit going away and Pernell had the audacity to say he won 10 out of 12 rounds when he pretty much did nothing but clown around and act like a jackass to the point that Emmanuel Augustus would probably wonder what the hell his issue was.

Man, all I'm gonna say is. Even G.I. who is a huge DLH fan (he can correct me if I'm mistaken) thought the Whitaker/De La Hoya fight could have gone either way. I'm tellin' you, man! You just gotta push away the ridiculous comments and appreciate the dude for what he was worth! He was great, actually excellent.

I wasn't aware he liked DLH. Honestly I can appreciate Whitaker's defensive mastery but he treated a lot of serious fights like they were jokes and paid for it on the scorecards by playing silly "you can't hit me games" while throwing back pillow shots.

It's true about De La Hoya --- I am probably his staunchest supporter & defender around here, thinking off-hand. I am a very, very devoted fan of both men, in fact.

I scored their fight for De La Hoya by a point. I hate when someone says Whitaker was robbed, frankly.

I also haven't seen the fight in a while. However, I score that fight an easy 9 rounds to 3 in favor of Whitaker. That fight was not even close; Whitaker won hands down that fight. I was completely appalled by the decision to say the least.

Diamond WEAPON wrote:LMAO, "Whitaker always gets robbed" because he dicked around too much in a lot of his fights. He was the most negative fighter in history, and preferred to make his opponents look bad rather than make himself look good. He made Bernard Hopkins look like Jack Dempsey.

I haven't scored the fight in a while but I believe I had it somewhere in the 7-5 or 8-4 range as far as rounds won.

Don't even get me started on his fight with De La Hoya, Oscar won that shit going away and Pernell had the audacity to say he won 10 out of 12 rounds when he pretty much did nothing but clown around and act like a jackass to the point that Emmanuel Augustus would probably wonder what the hell his issue was.

Nothing is more negative than your irrational commentary on him. He threw more punches in one fight than Hopkins has thrown in a decade. You can spew all the venom you want, Whitaker was one of the more active fighters of his generation. That is factual.

Edit: And Whitaker schooled Oscar, he won 8 or 9 rounds.

I had it 117-112 for Pernell Whittaker on my scorecard.