BoxRec

Few decisions have been poorer than this one. I'm a fan of both of these guys but that was a shame what happened that night. It should simply have been Pernell's crowning achievement instead it was a shameful night for the game of boxing.

Few moments in history can equal this one as a line in the sand when boxing began to lose it's appeal to the working guy with common sense.

As much as I like Chavez he was the recipient of two of the most nonsensical gifts the fight game has ever offered a boxer. I know you all know the other gift I am talking about.

Oh man. Ive thought a few times about bringing this fight up.
Ill never forget this . I remember almost losing interest in the whole sport after this.
I thought it was a disgrace . There were people who said Pernell ran too much and shouldnt have won. He didnt run. He put on a masterful performance of combination punching while giving Chavez angles he couldnt figure out.
He would score a combination and step around Julio. Textbook stuff.
Then came the dec. Unreal.
I felt like pulling an Elvis and shooting the T.V.
Someone elses house though.

What always amazed me about that fight, other than it being one of the worst decisions I've ever seen in my life, was how in the last 2-3 rounds, I could see that a late KO for Chavez was impossible. Why ??? Well we always hear about fighters legs being gone, but this time a guy's arms were gone. Whitaker made Chavez miss punches till his arms were dead. It was plainly obvious at the end, JCC an all time great had no punch left because Sweet Pea had killed his arms.

It was a truly shocking decision.

I don't know how the judges can live with themselves.

Didn't Mickey Vann take a point off Whittaker in his scoring of that fight even though the ref didn't? The same Mickey Vann who had Henry Wharton beating Fidel Castro Smith in one the other worst decisions of the decade.

Flump wrote:Didn't Mickey Vann take a point off Whittaker in his scoring of that fight even though the ref didn't? The same Mickey Vann who had Henry Wharton beating Fidel Castro Smith in one the other worst decisions of the decade.

Good call.

O'Toole -v- Wharton was equally shocking.

I still can't believe it!!! :x

Flump wrote:Didn't Mickey Vann take a point off Whittaker in his scoring of that fight even though the ref didn't? The same Mickey Vann who had Henry Wharton beating Fidel Castro Smith in one the other worst decisions of the decade.

He gave a point away because Pernell was too good.

It kinda sucks that Pernell didn't get the decision on the biggest stage of his prime career. I always felt because he was a defensive guy, the people were always trying to push Whitaker away for other stars. It was a total assrape of a decision.

Little by little, I'm becoming more of a defensive boxing fan. A little because they usually don't get the recognition they deserve and mostly because its entertaining to watch boxers to swing all over the place like they're fighting a fly.

My card for this one

My scorecard.

R1 10-9 Chavez
R2 10-10 Even (20-19 Chavez)
R3 10-9 Whitaker (29-29 Even)
R4 10-9 Whitaker (39-38 Whitaker)
R5 10-9 Whitaker (49-47 Whitaker)
R6 10-9 Whitaker (59-56 Whitaker)
R7 10-9 Whitaker (69-65 Whitaker)
R8 10-9 Whitaker (79-74 Whitaker)
R9 10-9 Chavez (88-84 Whitaker)
R10 10-9 Whitaker (98-93 Whitaker)
R11 10-9 Whitaker (108-102 Whitaker)
R12 10-9 Whitaker (118-111 Whitaker)

Does anyone have a punch count on the fight. I'd really like to see how many punches Chavez threw in the first 2 rounds. Some of the still photos of Whitaker were amazing, he reminded me of Jim Carrey in The Mask, when he was dodging bullets.

does anyone have a link to a fight or download?

The biggest arguement is that people have the feeling you can't win a fight going backwards, however, that's what Whitaker did. He also tended to be a bit of a loud mouth and a showboat (pantsing Mayweather, landing a 360 punch in another fight), and that often irked judges and boxing purists greatly. That led to him catching unwarranted flak on the cards, and led to a couple crap decisions (his first loss was utter BS as well)

Pernell was a showman to a T, and you knew you were getting 12 rounds of entertainment whenever he stepped through the ropes. The guy was a insane defensive tactician, and could get inside anyone's head. Sure, he tasted the canvas his fare share, but his balance was often miscued, and he couldn't help but hit the dirt.

All that aside, he was truly and utterly robbed in one of the biggest travesties in professional boxing. No excuse regarding his ring ethic, his respect for the game or his oppponent, none of it is valid in terms of this fight. He clearly outboxed Chavez, and as much as some people hated to see, he did it going backwards.

A very "Willie Pep" performance. Remarkable indeed.

The greatest damage that was done in this case was the loss of crediblity to the sport in general. It really hurt the public perception of the sport. Untold damage in my estimation.

I think the public perception became: "boxing is a joke... Judges don't score the fights, they score for who they want to win regardless of the actual outcome...so who gives a shyt what happens in these fights?" No one can tell me that between Chavez-Taylor, Chavez- Pea and Chavez-Randall II, that there wasn't SOME foul play. I don't know if it was Don King or some other influence. But for some reason Chavez seemed to benefit disproportionately from questionable decisions in big, high-profile fights as he moved up on class...maybe it had something to do with fear of losing the extremely lucrative Latino market that Chavez brought to the table...

Mattyp151 wrote:The biggest arguement is that people have the feeling you can't win a fight going backwards, however, that's what Whitaker did. He also tended to be a bit of a loud mouth and a showboat (pantsing Mayweather, landing a 360 punch in another fight), and that often irked judges and boxing purists greatly. That led to him catching unwarranted flak on the cards, and led to a couple crap decisions (his first loss was utter BS as well)

Pernell was a showman to a T, and you knew you were getting 12 rounds of entertainment whenever he stepped through the ropes. The guy was a insane defensive tactician, and could get inside anyone's head. Sure, he tasted the canvas his fare share, but his balance was often miscued, and he couldn't help but hit the dirt.

All that aside, he was truly and utterly robbed in one of the biggest travesties in professional boxing. No excuse regarding his ring ethic, his respect for the game or his oppponent, none of it is valid in terms of this fight. He clearly outboxed Chavez, and as much as some people hated to see, he did it going backwards.

I rank Pea as one of the top 3 welters in history. I agree completely that he was entertaining to watch...it seems like a lot of fans would say "Pea's boring...too defensive" and that kind of stuff, but to watch a brilliant defensive technician who could land four punches on a guy like chavez all the while slipping chavez's counters and switching angles was, to me, a treat like no other...I think Whitaker was most brilliant in the Santos Cardona fight...greg haugen was also an amazing performance. Once, I got into an argument with a Chavez fan who claimed that Whitaker didn't deserve the win because "he didn't knock Chavez out"...I don't know if that is typical of many Chavez fans, but it was revealing about the depths of denial that some JCC fans sunk to for their man.

Dentsun4228 wrote:

Mattyp151 wrote:The biggest arguement is that people have the feeling you can't win a fight going backwards, however, that's what Whitaker did. He also tended to be a bit of a loud mouth and a showboat (pantsing Mayweather, landing a 360 punch in another fight), and that often irked judges and boxing purists greatly. That led to him catching unwarranted flak on the cards, and led to a couple crap decisions (his first loss was utter BS as well)

Pernell was a showman to a T, and you knew you were getting 12 rounds of entertainment whenever he stepped through the ropes. The guy was a insane defensive tactician, and could get inside anyone's head. Sure, he tasted the canvas his fare share, but his balance was often miscued, and he couldn't help but hit the dirt.

All that aside, he was truly and utterly robbed in one of the biggest travesties in professional boxing. No excuse regarding his ring ethic, his respect for the game or his oppponent, none of it is valid in terms of this fight. He clearly outboxed Chavez, and as much as some people hated to see, he did it going backwards.

I rank Pea as one of the top 3 welters in history. I agree completely that he was entertaining to watch...it seems like a lot of fans would say "Pea's boring...too defensive" and that kind of stuff, but to watch a brilliant defensive technician who could land four punches on a guy like chavez all the while slipping chavez's counters and switching angles was, to me, a treat like no other...I think Whitaker was most brilliant in the Santos Cardona fight...greg haugen was also an amazing performance. Once, I got into an argument with a Chavez fan who claimed that Whitaker didn't deserve the win because "he didn't knock Chavez out"...I don't know if that is typical of many Chavez fans, but it was revealing about the depths of denial that some JCC fans sunk to for their man.

Welters? Lightweight or light-welter maybe. But at 147???????????

I've said it before, but it has never ceased to amaze me how many idiot boxing fans there are. They love guys who can't slip a punch to save there life and hate guys with radar like defense. And the accusations I've heard over the years are beyond ridiculous. It get's implied that guys who are real hard to hit, really must have glass jaws, or that they're weak or even afraid, because they wont fight in the trenches. And if fighter A is coming forward, doesn't matter how much leather he might be eating, they still think he's winning.

Decagon wrote:Wait. That means that this idiot ranks Whitaker over Robinson or Leonard or Napoles or Walker or Hearns or Armstrong or Griffith or Gavilan or Burley? Ranking Whitaker above one or two of them would be okay, but seven of them?!?! Is there a full moon out tonight? Where are these idiots coming from?

Yeah, I rank Pea third to Robinson and Leonard...Above Gavilan, Griffith, Napoles and hearns. IMO Mickey walker was not a great welter...and armstrong was a great all-timer (over pea on the all-time rankings) but not at welter. Pea was simply too skillful. He had deceptive power as well. Just look at the guys he KO'd and floored. His wasn't a power game, but he could hurt you and earn your respect if you got careless...Also, I rank Pea over Duran at lightwt...he was maybe the best lightwt ever, next to shane mosely. That should ruffle a few feathers on here...

crackin' good bio there Dec.

IMO his “loss” to Ramirez was pretty shameful as well.

Dec, I completely agree with Armstrong being a better ATG WW than Pea, but your assessment of Whitaker at WW might be a bit harsh.

I think Chavez went for a quick start as he didn't want to get too far behind on points after Taylor. Whittaker out boxed him. I scored recently and gave the benefit of the doubt to Chavez in every single close round and Whittaker still won.

As a boxing fan I think Whittaker was excellent as a punter I do think that his fights were so uncompetitive that I often cheered against him (but that was only ebcause he really was so good). I think he is a top LW and if someone wants tor ate him #1 and can put up an argument for it then fair enough. I have him at 4-5 LW but at WW I don't think he makes the top 10.

Decagon wrote:Armstrong had NINETEEN consecutive title defenses at welterweight, and won the title from another all-time great, Barney Ross. Even including the Chavez fight as a win, Whitaker never beat anyone at any weight that was as good as Ross

I'm also curious as to why you rank Whitaker over Burley. Explain?

Anyway, here's Whitaker's welterweight career:

• Struggles in wresting the title from a fairly weak champion, McGirt.
• Draws with/beats Chavez, who was a non-entity at 147.
• Wins the rematch with McGirt in more convincing fashion.
• Faces about five or six no-hopers.
• Badly, badly struggles with Wilfredo Rivera twice, arguably losing one or two of the fights.
• Gets bitchslapped for 10 rounds by Diobelys Hurtado, getting knocked down in the process. Manages a TKO.
• Loses (clearly, in my view) to Oscar de la Hoya, his only refuge being the foul scorecards, a bogus knockdown, and giving De la Hoya more trouble than he should have.
• Beats Andrei Pestriaev, only to lose the win because he was a crackhead.
• Signs to face Ike Quartey, but the match is cancelled because he was a crackhead.
• Tito cracks his head.

How can that compare to a fighter who beat an all-time great for the title and had 19 straight defenses? You admitted yourself that Armstrong was the better fighter, and welterweight is the division in which he was the most accomplished.

Armstrong had 19 defenses in, like 2 yrs against guys I mostly never heard of...and the guys I have heard of and seen, they weren't that great (zivic, garcia). I mean, if you're defending 19 times in 2 years, who are you really fighting? I don't want to say most of his defenses were against garbagemen, but I'd say I'm skeptical. I think Pea's level of comp was much higher.

I disagree with your assessment of McGirt and Chavez. Both of those guys are hall-of-famers. In fact both were at one time top pfp guys and McGirt was even compared favorably to SRR.

The Hurtado and Rivera fights were when Pea was on the downslide. His KO of Hurtado ( former amateur world champ a future pro world champ) and wins over Rivera (a perennial top contender for many years who dropped El Feroz Vargas) were more impressive because Pea was over the hill. He showed great character and an irrepressible will to win by coming back against Hurtado to score a one punch TKO, a very uncharacteristic thing and one that revealed there was much more to his repertoire than we knew.

Pea beat an assortment of welterweight standouts, respected contemporary and future champs, usually shutting them out completely. I rank him second only to RJJ as the fighter of the 90's.

About Charley Burley, I'll say that I never seen tape of the man, so I have nothing to say about him.

Dentsun4228 wrote:

Decagon wrote:Armstrong had NINETEEN consecutive title defenses at welterweight, and won the title from another all-time great, Barney Ross. Even including the Chavez fight as a win, Whitaker never beat anyone at any weight that was as good as Ross

I'm also curious as to why you rank Whitaker over Burley. Explain?

Anyway, here's Whitaker's welterweight career:

• Struggles in wresting the title from a fairly weak champion, McGirt.
• Draws with/beats Chavez, who was a non-entity at 147.
• Wins the rematch with McGirt in more convincing fashion.
• Faces about five or six no-hopers.
• Badly, badly struggles with Wilfredo Rivera twice, arguably losing one or two of the fights.
• Gets bitchslapped for 10 rounds by Diobelys Hurtado, getting knocked down in the process. Manages a TKO.
• Loses (clearly, in my view) to Oscar de la Hoya, his only refuge being the foul scorecards, a bogus knockdown, and giving De la Hoya more trouble than he should have.
• Beats Andrei Pestriaev, only to lose the win because he was a crackhead.
• Signs to face Ike Quartey, but the match is cancelled because he was a crackhead.
• Tito cracks his head.

How can that compare to a fighter who beat an all-time great for the title and had 19 straight defenses? You admitted yourself that Armstrong was the better fighter, and welterweight is the division in which he was the most accomplished.

Armstrong had 19 defenses in, like 2 yrs against guys I mostly never heard of...and the guys I have heard of and seen, they weren't that great (zivic, garcia). I mean, if you're defending 19 times in 2 years, who are you really fighting? I don't want to say most of his defenses were against garbagemen, but I'd say I'm skeptical. I think Pea's level of comp was much higher.

I disagree with your assessment of McGirt and Chavez. Both of those guys are hall-of-famers. In fact both were at one time top pfp guys and McGirt was even compared favorably to SRR.

The Hurtado and Rivera fights were when Pea was on the downslide. His KO of Hurtado ( former amateur world champ a future pro world champ) and wins over Rivera (a perennial top contender for many years who dropped El Feroz Vargas) were more impressive because Pea was over the hill. He showed great character and an irrepressible will to win by coming back against Hurtado to score a one punch TKO, a very uncharacteristic thing and one that revealed there was much more to his repertoire than we knew.

Pea beat an assortment of welterweight standouts, respected contemporary and future champs, usually shutting them out completely. I rank him second only to RJJ as the fighter of the 90's.

About Charley Burley, I'll say that I never seen tape of the man, so I have nothing to say about him.

Buddy McGirt? What universe are you inhabiting, mate?

Yeah dude, I think McGirt was a great fighter, but I'm not buying that.