De La Hoya / Whitaker

misternuts · Post by **misternuts** » 25 Mar 2003, 14:30

This is often cited as a controversial decision (though I for one do not agree). I think it is relevant, though, that Whitaker had a point deducted for a rule that the WBC used to have that is no longer in use. In the 3rd round, there was an accidental clash of heads which resulted in a small cut on De La Hoya. Under the old rule, the damaged fighter was compensated for such a handicap by a point deduction on the undamaged fighter.

matador · Post by **matador** » 25 Mar 2003, 16:15

this decision was very controversial. in the eyes of many, whitaker won 8 rounds. whitaker outlanded DLH and showed better ring generalship. his defense was also much sharper as evinced when DLH threw combos and landed nothing. i have no idea what criteria the judges used in giving the decision to the challenger. DLH certainly didn't do enough to convincingly take the title away.

misternuts · Post by **misternuts** » 25 Mar 2003, 16:45

I think his defense was very good but his "ring generalship" was an illusion. You cannot be in control of a fight when you are not offensively effective. Pernell made Oscar miss a lot, but he landed very little significant of his own. And even if he dodged seven out of ten power shots, he got hit with far more than he landed himself. De La Hoya's defense was almost as good as Whitaker's without the expense of sacrificing his offense. Pernell didn't have enough firepower to keep him off. Oscar just kept pressuring him down and throwing (and landing) with enough success to take rounds. He stunned/wobbled Whitaker on several occasions. That was much more than Whitaker did to him. The knockdown was a balance shot that obviously did no damage.

I think it is fortunate to give Whitaker 5 full rounds of this fight. I scored it 7-4-1 to De La Hoya. Give Sweet Pea a 10-8 if you like, the point deduction brings it back to the same score.