A Ultra Indepth Analyisis of Chavez vs Randall I

[Humean]

Whether or not my scorecard is perfect is not relevant. But I can assure you it is much more in line with every credible source who scored that fight than yours is.

Find one credible person who thought the draw was reasonable or scored it that way. When you can't you'll realize that being the contrarian is not a good look in this situation.

I have no idea who would count as 'credible' to anyone who is convinced Whitaker won and who perhaps thinks he won by a landslide. I mean I don't even disagree with the view that Whitaker won the fight I just disagree with the idea it was as one sided as many make it out to be. Whitaker landed more clean punches than Chavez but Chavez seemed to me to land with more authority and where the pattern of all those punches, by both, landed in terms of rounds determines the final outcome with slight modifications being made in regards to effective aggression, ring generalship and defence in each individual round. To comes up with a scorecard for Chavez would be ridiculous but 114-114 or the two 115-115 that two of the judges came up with was just on the edges of credible to me.

[joseph5620]

I have no idea who would count as 'credible' to anyone who is convinced Whitaker won and who perhaps thinks he won by a landslide. I mean I don't even disagree with the view that Whitaker won the fight I just disagree with the idea it was as one sided as many make it out to be. Whitaker landed more clean punches than Chavez but Chavez seemed to me to land with more authority and where the pattern of all those punches, by both, landed in terms of rounds determines the final outcome with slight modifications being made in regards to effective aggression, ring generalship and defence in each individual round. To comes up with a scorecard for Chavez would be ridiculous but 114-114 or the two 115-115 that two of the judges came up with was just on the edges of credible to me.

You have an idea who is credible and who isn't in this situation. But you can keep pretending that you don't when it's convenient for you.

The fact that you dont even remember your own scorecard other than 116-112 or 115-113 Whitaker, yet believe a draw is reasonable, speaks for itself.

[Humean]

You have an idea who is credible and who isn't in this situation. But you can keep pretending that you don't when it's convenient for you.

The fact that you dont even remember your own scorecard other than 116-112 or 115-113 Whitaker, yet believe a draw is reasonable, speaks for itself.

Who is credible? Clearly not two of the three official judges because you disagree with them, some particular journalists? Some particular commentators? Some particular fighters? Who? If with my own eyes I don't see it that way then why should I defer to any of them or whomever else you envision as being credible? I know that my scorecard is unlikely to be accurate and neither is most others, the point of having three judges is precisely because one individual scorecard will err and at least having two others can increase (albeit not by much) accuracy. I think that if my scoring is wrong then what other way could I see rounds and by doing so I can see scorecards sometimes wildly different to my own and can nevertheless consider them reasonable and credible. I scored for Whitaker over De La Hoya but to me that was a genuine fight where reasonable scorecards could be all over the place.

The last time I scored Chavez-Whitaker was before I started keeping scorecards on my computer so I do not have it at hand but I do remember that I thought the fight was reasonably close and that a draw wasn't ridiculous. I remember that because a draw was how it was officially scored, i'm not sure what other conclusion is supposed to be drawn from my memory that I thought a draw was just about reasonable.

[Sugar Adam Ali]

I thought pernell clearly beat chavez 115-113 or 116-112

in regards to pernell-ramirez, i am in the minority but i didnt think it was such a huge robbery. I always thought that was one of pernel's not so great performances,, I always felt he was alittle green in that one, and didnt capitalize on mistakes that he lured ramirez into, I felt pernel learned alot from that fight and you can see it in the next few years from 88-91, he was clearly a better fighter than he was vs ramirez...

Should he have gotten a decision, yes probably so, but i dont think its as huge a robbery as say tim-manny or something like that.
Ramirez dictated the fight, pernel would make him miss but not really make him pay for missing and seemed at times to be alittle tentative, and i thought ramirez came on strong in the later stages of the fight..

Never thought this was a robbery, just a close fight which i think pernell gave away more than ramirez won it IMO

Now everyone feel free to tell me how ****** i am