BoxRec

Steve Farhood says that Whitaker did better than Chavez especially over the second half of the fight. ONLY trouble is the fight is scored over the whole 12 rounds. Plain and simple Whitaker didn't win more than 6 rounds and either did Chavez. That's a draw when you add up the scores of all 12 rounds. There was only 1 round that was hard to score, and could have gone either way. 11 of the rounds were simple to score.

I thought Whitaker won that fight.

MDG wrote:Steve Farhood says that Whitaker did better than Chavez especially over the second half of the fight. ONLY trouble is the fight is scored over the whole 12 rounds. Plain and simple Whitaker didn't win more than 6 rounds and either did Chavez. That's a draw when you add up the scores of all 12 rounds. There was only 1 round that was hard to score, and could have gone either way. 11 of the rounds were simple to score.

Sweet Pea dominated far more completely than Rigo schooled Nonito last week. Complete dominance.

Steve Farhood looks like jacks off to videos of guys jacking off to videos. Eff that weird loser. Sweet Pea won that fight. Also wtf at bringing up this old ass fight randomly?!?!

armageto wrote:I thought Whitaker won that fight.

Lots of people did, how did you have it scored. I had it a draw. 6 rounds apeace. one round close that could have gone either way that I gave to Chavez. Had I gave it to Whitaker he would have won the bout.

Uh, there's a BOTP forum.

MDG wrote:Steve Farhood says that Whitaker did better than Chavez especially over the second half of the fight. ONLY trouble is the fight is scored over the whole 12 rounds. Plain and simple Whitaker didn't win more than 6 rounds and either did Chavez. That's a draw when you add up the scores of all 12 rounds. There was only 1 round that was hard to score, and could have gone either way. 11 of the rounds were simple to score.

I'm sorry but that fight was not even close at best Chavez won 3 rounds. Sweet pea school Chavez that night. One of the worst decisions in boxing.

I had the fight scored pretty much the same as the article in Sports Illustrated did. Funny how the cover of the magazine read ROBBED but when you read the article it pretty much alludes to a draw. lol

MDG wrote:

armageto wrote:I thought Whitaker won that fight.

Lots of people did, how did you have it scored. I had it a draw. 6 rounds apeace. one round close that could have gone either way that I gave to Chavez. Had I gave it to Whitaker he would have won the bout.

It's been a while, I'd have to pop in the dvd. I'm going to say I had it 116-112, where I thought Whitaker clearly won.....

The art of slipping, running, holding, and moving was basically created by the african american boxer and therefore many american blow by blow guys like kellerman have a heavy bias towards this style. Many guys like Kellerman will go crazy if a guy jabs and proceeds to do a shake a back and a rope a dope before running across the ring. However, in other cultures this may be as well regarded as in the United States. In the US, there is so much bias towards this style that the term "ineffective aggression" has been well coined and well documented. However, the term "ineffective boxing" has yet to be mentioned. I like trout but throwing 150 flickering jabs, of which none land is hardly impressive.

As for whitaker, he was more "difficutlt to beat" than "great." In a gestalt, his losses against Ramirez and De La Hoya as well as his draw vs chavez are well deserved because you cant simply backpeddle, hold, run, and expect to win all your fights. His fights against against some of the most exciting fighters in history (e.g Chaves and Nelson) are some of the most boring exhibitions in the history of boxing because for the most part swet pea fought "not to lose" instead of fighting to win.

ReggieDiggs wrote: Steve Farhood looks like jacks off to videos of guys jacking off to videos. Eff that weird loser. Sweet Pea won that fight. Also wtf at bringing up this old ass fight randomly?!?!

i looked to the top to make sure i didn't click into the wrong section, then had a m.c. hammer flashback

Luckybattles wrote: you cant simply backpeddle, hold, run, and do cocaine and expect to win all your fights.

fixed

Luckybattles wrote:The art of slipping, running, holding, and moving was basically created by the african american boxer and therefore many american blow by blow guys like kellerman have a heavy bias towards this style. Many guys like Kellerman will go crazy if a guy jabs and proceeds to do a shake a back and a rope a dope before running across the ring. However, in other cultures this may be as well regarded as in the United States. In the US, there is so much bias towards this style that the term "ineffective aggression" has been well coined and well documented. However, the term "ineffective boxing" has yet to be mentioned. I like trout but throwing 150 flickering jabs, of which none land is hardly impressive.

As for whitaker, he was more "difficutlt to beat" than "great." In a gestalt, his losses against Ramirez and De La Hoya as well as his draw vs chavez are well deserved because you cant simply backpeddle, hold, run, and expect to win all your fights. His fights against against some of the most exciting fighters in history (e.g Chaves and Nelson) are some of the most boring exhibitions in the history of boxing because for the most part swet pea fought "not to lose" instead of fighting to win.

I have to agree wholeheartedly with Luckybattles, Whitaker was one of the worst fighters to watch in the history of boxing. The only time I watched him was in the hopes that he would get beat. Trout isn't quite as bad, but he's working on it. Too many fighters get credit for throwing punches that never land or are blocked. Wasn't all that impressed with Canello but he got the job done.

MDG wrote:Steve Farhood says that Whitaker did better than Chavez especially over the second half of the fight. ONLY trouble is the fight is scored over the whole 12 rounds. Plain and simple Whitaker didn't win more than 6 rounds and either did Chavez. That's a draw when you add up the scores of all 12 rounds. There was only 1 round that was hard to score, and could have gone either way. 11 of the rounds were simple to score.

armageto wrote:I thought Whitaker won that fight.

He absolutely did. The only thing Farhood got right is that it was quite easy to score.

Luckybattles wrote:In a gestalt, his losses against Ramirez and De La Hoya as well as his draw vs chavez are well deserved because you cant simply backpeddle, hold, run, and expect to win all your fights.

The Whitaker-Ramirez and Whitaker-Chavez decisions are widely regarded as two of the worst decisions in recent boxing history You're obviously letting your biased feelings toward Whitaker cloud your judgement. Not all fighters can be Arturo Gatti in terms of excitement.

matador wrote:

Luckybattles wrote:In a gestalt, his losses against Ramirez and De La Hoya as well as his draw vs chavez are well deserved because you cant simply backpeddle, hold, run, and expect to win all your fights.

The Whitaker-Ramirez and Whitaker-Chavez decisions are widely regarded as two of the worst decisions in recent boxing history You're obviously letting your biased feelings toward Whitaker cloud your judgement. Not all fighters can be Arturo Gatti in terms of excitement.

Ramirez, Chavez & Oscar didn't win enough clear rounds combined to earn a draw.

He thoroughly schooled JCC. No ifs, no ands, no buts.

There's no way Chavez won this fight. WTF. Isn't this considered one of the most outrageous decisions in history?

JCS wrote:There's no way Chavez won this fight. WTF. Isn't this considered one of the most outrageous decisions in history?

Yeah it is, Julio has some crazy fans. They've actually had to pretend that Whitaker was running in that fight to rationalize it. The fact of the matter is Whitaker hurt him and backed him off. He was not only the clearly greater boxer, he was stronger and tougher too. That's the part that really stings.

MDG wrote:

Luckybattles wrote:The art of slipping, running, holding, and moving was basically created by the african american boxer and therefore many american blow by blow guys like kellerman have a heavy bias towards this style. Many guys like Kellerman will go crazy if a guy jabs and proceeds to do a shake a back and a rope a dope before running across the ring. However, in other cultures this may be as well regarded as in the United States. In the US, there is so much bias towards this style that the term "ineffective aggression" has been well coined and well documented. However, the term "ineffective boxing" has yet to be mentioned. I like trout but throwing 150 flickering jabs, of which none land is hardly impressive.

As for whitaker, he was more "difficutlt to beat" than "great." In a gestalt, his losses against Ramirez and De La Hoya as well as his draw vs chavez are well deserved because you cant simply backpeddle, hold, run, and expect to win all your fights. His fights against against some of the most exciting fighters in history (e.g Chaves and Nelson) are some of the most boring exhibitions in the history of boxing because for the most part swet pea fought "not to lose" instead of fighting to win.

I have to agree wholeheartedly with Luckybattles, Whitaker was one of the worst fighters to watch in the history of boxing. The only time I watched him was in the hopes that he would get beat. Trout isn't quite as bad, but he's working on it. Too many fighters get credit for throwing punches that never land or are blocked. Wasn't all that impressed with Canello but he got the job done.

Didn't Willie Pep popularize the whole defensive style when Sandy Saddler was trying to knock his head off?

Let me get stupid too. Since you want to make it cultural ... I think the follow a guy around and land one hard punch two times a round an then claim you won was created by the white boxers who couldn't compete with Jack Johnson and Sugar Ray Robinson. Knowing that they would never match the footwork and accuracy of "certain fighters", they created a way of scoring fights that highlighted their swing for the fences fight style ... that almost always results in a loss against skilled fighters.

What makes me laugh is that when a non-black fighter like Nonito, Khan, Finito, Calzaghe or Canelo uses the defensive style which is now attributed to blacks, they are lauded for improving their "boxing skills". But when a black guy fights like that, all the stereotypes above come into play. Racist much?

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

JCS wrote:There's no way Chavez won this fight. WTF. Isn't this considered one of the most outrageous decisions in history?

Yeah it is, Julio has some crazy fans. They've actually had to pretend that Whitaker was running in that fight to rationalize it. The fact of the matter is Whitaker hurt him and backed him off. He was not only the clearly greater boxer, he was stronger and tougher too. That's the part that really stings.

Ok, just making sure I'm not losing it. Scored it 8-3-1.

armageto wrote:

MDG wrote:

armageto wrote:I thought Whitaker won that fight.

Lots of people did, how did you have it scored. I had it a draw. 6 rounds apeace. one round close that could have gone either way that I gave to Chavez. Had I gave it to Whitaker he would have won the bout.

It's been a while, I'd have to pop in the dvd. I'm going to say I had it 116-112, where I thought Whitaker clearly won.....

I had it the same.

Sonny Fiston wrote:

Luckybattles wrote:The art of slipping, running, holding, and moving was basically created by the african american boxer and therefore many american blow by blow guys like kellerman have a heavy bias towards this style. Many guys like Kellerman will go crazy if a guy jabs and proceeds to do a shake a back and a rope a dope before running across the ring. However, in other cultures this may be as well regarded as in the United States. In the US, there is so much bias towards this style that the term "ineffective aggression" has been well coined and well documented. However, the term "ineffective boxing" has yet to be mentioned. I like trout but throwing 150 flickering jabs, of which none land is hardly impressive.

As for whitaker, he was more "difficutlt to beat" than "great." In a gestalt, his losses against Ramirez and De La Hoya as well as his draw vs chavez are well deserved because you cant simply backpeddle, hold, run, and expect to win all your fights. His fights against against some of the most exciting fighters in history (e.g Chaves and Nelson) are some of the most boring exhibitions in the history of boxing because for the most part swet pea fought "not to lose" instead of fighting to win.

Really? Then other cultures have it wrong, and that's why many of them are finished at 25 and punch drunk at 30.

In reality, they don't. How many Latino fighters throughout history have incredible defense and don't brawl? I can name many.

He lost a split against Ramirez, and then took his sorry ass to school in the rematch. Whitaker threw 7-800 punches a fight before his hand injury. He was a freak among defensive fighters.

Indeed he was, and he clearly beat Ramirez the first time.

matador wrote:

Luckybattles wrote:In a gestalt, his losses against Ramirez and De La Hoya as well as his draw vs chavez are well deserved because you cant simply backpeddle, hold, run, and expect to win all your fights.

The Whitaker-Ramirez and Whitaker-Chavez decisions are widely regarded as two of the worst decisions in recent boxing history You're obviously letting your biased feelings toward Whitaker cloud your judgement. Not all fighters can be Arturo Gatti in terms of excitement.

Agreed.