sCTrojansbaby... Let's see your scorecard for Chavez-Whitaker

[JAB5239]

If you don't think 3 pounds is an weight advantage you just don't know boxing.

Its the same division, there is no advantage. Now if Pea came in 20lbs heavier ala Gatti-Gamache, you could argue a point. As it stands your argument holds no water. The bottom line is ANYBODY who thinks Whitaker was not the rightful winner of that fight regardless of the scores, is the one who just doesn't know boxing.

[JAB5239]

Why does it mean very little 3 pounds is significant at welterweight heck 3 pounds is the difference between some divisions.

There is a reason Chavez was able to fight at 140 for so long, he wasn't very big even for 140.

Chavez is a year and a half older and an inch and a half taller. In 1984 they were both fighting at lightweight, hence, they've always been around the same size. Just quit already with this ridiculousness.

[Scott9945]

Why does it mean very little 3 pounds is significant at welterweight heck 3 pounds is the difference between some divisions.

There is a reason Chavez was able to fight at 140 for so long, he wasn't very big even for 140.

Boxing history will show that 3 lbs in the welterweight division is nothing. It's 7 lbs between the next lower and higher weight class. Chavez was the one who challenged for the welterweight title, and he failed against a smaller than average welterweight.

You can rationalize this all you want. Everyone who saw that fight knows that Whitaker was the better fighter that night. Probably every other night as well.

[SCtrojansbaby]

Boxing history will show that 3 lbs in the welterweight division is nothing. It's 7 lbs between the next lower and higher weight class. Chavez was the one who challenged for the welterweight title, and he failed against a smaller than average welterweight.

You can rationalize this all you want. Everyone who saw that fight knows that Whitaker was the better fighter that night. Probably every other night as well.

judge: Jack Woodruff 113-115 | judge: Mickey Vann 115-115 | judge: Franz Marti 115-115

lol who is rationalizing again?

[StarshipTrooper]

judge: Jack Woodruff 113-115 | judge: Mickey Vann 115-115 | judge: Franz Marti 115-115

lol who is rationalizing again?

Don King.
Bribes.
Get a clue Junior.

[SCtrojansbaby]

Don King.
Bribes.
Get a clue Junior.

9 blatant low blows
Bribes
Get a clue

[StarshipTrooper]

9 blatant low blows
Bribes
Get a clue

Thank you for admitting that a known cheater Chavez hit Sweet Pea low more than 9 times and that Chavez's corrupt sugar daddy bribed judges and refs.

Poet

[JAB5239]

9 blatant low blows
Bribes
Get a clue

First, how do you know they were blatant? Second, how about showing your score card and why you scored it as you did? Third, we all know there is and never has been any corruption in boxing in spite of what we're able to see for ourselves, right?

[Scott9945]

judge: Jack Woodruff 113-115 | judge: Mickey Vann 115-115 | judge: Franz Marti 115-115

lol who is rationalizing again?

Like I said, Chavez FAILED to win the welterweight title. And was damn lucky to get a draw too.

[Mugwump]

First, how do you know they were blatant?

Short of accessing the mind of the fighter it's impossible to know for sure. That said, referees still have to make an judgement call on the evidence as they see it.

In my opinion Cortez let Whittaker off with a lot (although I'm not sure he hit Chavez deliberately low nine times). I mean, if we were talking about some kind of crude slugger there's an (albeit weak) argument the other way. But Pernell was never that. One low blow from a fighter who made a career out of being deadly accurate you can explain away. But several? I don't think so. By the way, despite Chavez' reputation for rough house tactics over the years I thought he took them pretty well and didn't respond in such a way as to turn the fight into a charade.

Had it been Eddie Cotton or Mills Lane in there that night I think Whittaker could have lost anywhere up to two points for persistent low blows. And in my mind he SHOULD have lost a point for putting his hands on the referee. Even though I don't think he meant anything other than friendliness (with a bit of psychology thrown in for good measure) that kind of behaviour is disrespectful and sets a dangerous precedent. You should NEVER touch the ref.

As for whether the fight was rigged. I think we have to be very careful introducing such accusations as they can very quickly send us spiralling into the depths of cynicism where little is knowable and all decisions are questioned. We see this kind of thing seemingly manifesting itself in all corners of life these days and it's utterly depressing (the 9/11 truthers and fake moon landing brigade being obvious examples).

Yes - Don King is a pretty disreputable fellow. Yes, Whittaker was the victim of a bad decision. But sans any credible evidence to say otherwise (admissions by judges that they took money, affidavits from eye-witnesses etc.) we must reasonably conclude that the fight was legit and the curious judgement was simply the result of differences of opinion.