Whitaker vs Ramirez 1

[Willie Pep 229]

Randall got a split decision because of two points taken from Chavez. All this after Pea exposed him proving who the real p4p nber one was at that time. Oh, but Chavez was already "crumbling", right?

Turd gobbler.

Wait! I am confused by your argument.

Are you saying that Randall fought better because Whitaker made Chavez looked beatable?

That's not an unrealistic conclusion, e.g. Tyson, but that then goes to the argument Chavez was fading by the time he gets to Whitaker.

With the second argument being my opinion forwhatever that may be worth.

As well, Chavez's style wasn't going to be effective agsinst larger opponents. It is easier for boxers, who depend on point counting scoring to move up in weight than for ****ers who need to score KDs and KOs to win.

Personally I believe that those who believe Whitaker won the 'fight' (not the point counting boxing match,) were fooled by the 'anticipation' factor.

Chavez looked like a relentless unstoppable machine before Whitaker. Whitaker proved he could stop that assualt, but Whitaker never ventured into the dangerous territory where it would have been neceassay to stop Chavez.

Whitaker never did more than stop the Chavez assault machine. He didn't defeat it.

The Anticipation Fallacy.

The 'fight' was a draw.

[Anthony342]

Randall got a split decision because of two points taken from Chavez. All this after Pea exposed him proving who the real p4p nber one was at that time. Oh, but Chavez was already "crumbling", right?

Turd gobbler.

That fight shouldn't have even been that close. Plus Randall got another extra point from a knockdown at the end of another round. Just goes to show you how biased judges were for Chavez back then.

[JAB5239]

Wait! I am confused by your argument.

Are you saying that Randall fought better because Whitaker made Chavez looked beatable?

That's not an unrealistic conclusion, e.g. Tyson, but that then goes to the argument Chavez was fading by the time he gets to Whitaker.

With the second argument being my opinion forwhatever that may be worth.

As well, Chavez's style wasn't going to be effective agsinst larger opponents. It is easier for boxers, who depend on point counting scoring to move up in weight than for ****ers who need to score KDs and KOs to win.

Personally I believe that those who believe Whitaker won the 'fight' (not the point counting boxing match,) were fooled by the 'anticipation' factor.

Chavez looked like a relentless unstoppable machine before Whitaker. Whitaker proved he could stop that assualt, but Whitaker never ventured into the dangerous territory where it would have been neceassay to stop Chavez.

Whitaker never did more than stop the Chavez assault machine. He didn't defeat it.

The Anticipation Fallacy.

The 'fight' was a draw.

There was nothing to suggest Chavez was fading before Whitaker. This is why Queenie can't and won't show anything, making his claim BS as usual. Randall won the fight with Chavez because of the points taken from Chavez for 2 low blows. It's a perfectly legit win, but let's not try to pretend like the Turd gobbler that Randall did or was more convincing than Whitaker in their respective fights. I'm not going to bother arguing with you about how or if Whitaker won. I know your stance on his style of fighting and still disagree with it. It is also my contention Whitaker did not run bit instead moved effectively. He double jabbed to keep JCC off balance. Turned him to land quicker combinations and kept his right foot on the outside of Chavez left foot to take away his hook. Truly, it was aboxing masterclass. Chavez only fought badly because Pernell took everything away from him.

[JAB5239]

That fight shouldn't have even been that close. Plus Randall got another extra point from a knockdown at the end of another round. Just goes to show you how biased judges were for Chavez back then.

I haven't watched that fight in some time, but I made a point to watch Chavez Whitaker the other night, and while some rounds were close, it was all Pea overall.

[Anthony342]

I haven't watched that fight in some time, but I made a point to watch Chavez Whitaker the other night, and while some rounds were close, it was all Pea overall.

Yeah that and the Ramirez fight Whitaker got screwed. If decisions are gonna be overturned, those two should be.

[Willie Pep 229]

There was nothing to suggest Chavez was fading before Whitaker. This is why Queenie can't and won't show anything, making his claim BS as usual. Randall won the fight with Chavez because of the points taken from Chavez for 2 low blows. It's a perfectly legit win, but let's not try to pretend like the Turd gobbler that Randall did or was more convincing than Whitaker in their respective fights. I'm not going to bother arguing with you about how or if Whitaker won. I know your stance on his style of fighting and still disagree with it. It is also my contention Whitaker did not run bit instead moved effectively. He double jabbed to keep JCC off balance. Turned him to land quicker combinations and kept his right foot on the outside of Chavez left foot to take away his hook. Truly, it was aboxing masterclass. Chavez only fought badly because Pernell took everything away from him.

You're right we have beat our disagreement to death, no point in it.

But in regards to the bold above I agree with you completely - that was a well decsribed analysis. Whitaker stopping, what was considered before the fight, unstoppable.

That was his victory, he stopped the Chavez assault, no one else could, up to the point.

It also had an anticpation magic about it, because before the fight most thought a stablemate fight between Taylor and Whitaker was a pick 'um fight. Thus manny thought Whitaker, against Chavez, would go the way of Taylor. After Whitaker neutralized Chavez's attack the talk about who was better Taylor or Whitaker stopped. Whitaker was seen as the better of the two, obviously.

But of course I then wanted more from Whitaker.

It's kind of how I feel with Leonard-Hagler. You and I would probably disagree about that one too. I think that was a draw. Lol.

[JAB5239]

You're right we have beat our disagreement to death, no point in it.

But in regards to the bold above I agree with you completely - that was a well decsribed analysis. Whitaker stopping, what was considered before the fight, unstoppable.

That was his victory, he stopped the Chavez assault, no one else could, up to the point.

It also had an anticpation magic about it, because before the fight most thought a stablemate fight between Taylor and Whitaker was a pick 'um fight. Thus manny thought Whitaker, against Chavez, would go the way of Taylor. After Whitaker neutralized Chavez's attack the talk about who was better Taylor or Whitaker stopped. Whitaker was seen as the better of the two, obviously.

But of course I then wanted more from Whitaker.

It's kind of how I feel with Leonard-Hagler. You and I would probably disagree about that one too. I think that was a draw. Lol.

Styles make fights. Taylor didn't have the se style as Whitaker. His natur talent and speed kept him ahead of Chavez for much of their fight, but he made the fatal flaw of trading punches. Pea was more elusive when trading therefore didn't suffer the se kind of damage. It was never because Chavez had shown signs of crumbling, but because Whitaker fought a smarter fight and was able to stick with it. In my humble opinion.

[QueensburyRules]

I'm sorry.....how was Chavez "CRUMBLING" before the Whitaker fight again?

- - It good that U sorry about U math illiteracy and born crumbles.

I know U still crying over Taylor putting on a better performance on the cards than Pea, but see, Taylor was the star of that stable, a traditional boxer/puncher with handspeed and willingness to fight instead of clowning.

Had Pea followed that model, he might not of lost to Ramirez badly as he did, but Ramirez a good B side learning fight for him, the only good thing Duva did for him.

It OK U no want to know about Pea tragic death. He nothing to U.