who won Dela Hoya v Whitaker

[Darkstar]

Its scored on EFFECTIVE AGGRESSION not just aggression alone. See this what I was talking about. Fighters getting credit for just being aggressive when that **** is doing nothing at all. Read how fights are scored over again and you will see what I'm talking about.

Go on youtube and listen to when Harold Lederman reads the rules and scoring for a fight I will bet you all of my points he says that part of the fight will be scored on EFFECTIVE AGGRESSION not just being aggresive.

Calling it EFFECTIVE AGGRESSION doesnt limit it to landing clean power shots. It goes beyond that. I think most boxing fans agree on giving close round to the fighter who brings the fight.

But I see your a Mayweather fan so you take the defensive side.

[Dynamite Kid]

'Aggression' is a good excuse to score a fight for a more exciting fighter. Pernell Whitaker won this fight IMO, no doubt in my mind about it.

Even if you don't agree with me, I'm sure you can agree that those judges were crooked. How could they score it 9 rounds to 3 for DLH? No f'in way.

i respect your opinion but

i think its to close of a fight to catergorically say that one fighter won the fight no doubt ,these were ultra tight rounds & the 10 -8 Dela Hoya & Whitaker got in the fight only cloud the issue because some people count the 10 -8 for Oscar & others say Dela Hoya was not kncoked down some say that Whitaker should never have lost a point for the head butt as it was accident but he was punished for it etc

[tredh]

Calling it EFFECTIVE AGGRESSION doesnt limit it to landing clean power shots. It goes beyond that. I think most boxing fans agree on giving close round to the fighter who brings the fight.

But I see your a Mayweather fan so you take the defensive side.

Being a Mayweather fan has nothing to do with it. Why should a person get credit for being aggressive when that aggression is not leading to them dictating the fight, landing the cleaner shots, or making their opponent fight a different fight then they planned on fighting?

See its a thought process like yours that have guys thinking they can just come forward to take 5 punches just to land 2 hard punches and they think they won the round just because they were coming forward. But in coming forward they didn't accomplish any of the other scoring factors such as ring generalship or defense.

[TheGreatA]

Oh yeah I forgot that 'headbutt'. To me the winner was decided before the match even began and you can see it from the judges scoring.

Here's an interview with Lampley&Merchant questioning Whitaker&De La Hoya about the match. Both fighters think they won the fight but DLH agrees that if it was close he would've gotten the decision because he is younger and more marketable





De La Hoya accepts Whitaker's challenge for a rematch but it never happened because of Whitaker's drug problems and because the money wasn't in it.

[Dynamite Kid]

Calling it EFFECTIVE AGGRESSION doesnt limit it to landing clean power shots. It goes beyond that. I think most boxing fans agree on giving close round to the fighter who brings the fight.

But I see your a Mayweather fan so you take the defensive side.

on the other hand it tend to agree with this aswell

i mean this is why i thought Taylor beat Hopkins both times cause he was the one bringing the fight in the close rounds & basically more active ,even thiough Bhop came on strong towards the end it still dont change the fact Taylor had put the rounds he needed inthe bank

[Darkstar]

Being a Mayweather fan has nothing to do with it. Why should a person get credit for being aggressive when that aggression is not leading to them dictating the fight, landing the cleaner shots, or making their opponent fight a different fight then they planned on fighting?

See its a thought process like yours that have guys thinking they can just come forward to take 5 punches just to land 2 hard punches and they think they won the round just because they were coming forward. But in coming forward they didn't accomplish any of the other scoring factors such as ring generalship or defense.

In no way did Oscar get beat up in either of those fight.


So you can take the title away by fighting backwards, not stoping the whole fight for an exchange, always being on the defensive, causing no damage and posing no threat at all?

[tredh]

In no way did Oscar get beat up in either of those fight.


So you can take the title away by fighting backwards, not stoping the whole fight for an enchange, always being on the defensive, causing no damage and posing no threat at all?

He lost both fights thats for sure. As far as the 5 punches 2 punches thing I wasn't specifically talking about De la Hoya I was talking about aggressive fighters in general and they're thinking.

Yes you can take the title fighting backwards and not stopping for an exchange, causing no damage and posing no threat because at the sametime you have to take into account what the other fighter is doing besides coming forward. Who's defense was better? Who landed the more cleaner shots when neither is landing heavy punches? Who had who fighting their style of fight? I will go with YOUR scoring criteria of giving credit to a fighter for just being aggressive regardless of it being effective or not. OK so you give De la Hoya the point for being aggressive but the other fighter gets the other 3 points for the scoring criteria so De la Hoya while being aggressive is accomplishing none of the other 3 things that is used to score a round. So how he is winning or the winner in the fight?

[Darkstar]

Only in close rounds when neither fighter is landing clean shots and thier at a stalemate so to speak, is when the round should go to the aggresser. (DLH vs Whitaker is a good example)

Its called boxing not my defense is better.

[Dynamite Kid]

Only in close rounds when neither fighter is landing clean shots and thier at a stalemate so to speak, is when the round should go to the aggresser. (DLH vs Whitaker is a good example)

Its called boxing not my defense is better.

i disgree with that if it is a stalemete then no fighter deserves the round & it should be scored a draw ,its rounds like these that distort the scoring & why there is uproar in close fights like this IMO

[tredh]

Only in close rounds when neither fighter is landing clean shots and thier at a stalemate so to speak, is when the round should go to the aggresser. (DLH vs Whitaker is a good example)

Its called boxing not my defense is better.

If its called boxing then it should be scored according to the rules of boxing. Which should be on who did all 4 of the scoring criteria better than the other not who was the aggressor when the aggressor wasn't effective since effective aggression is a actual scoring criteria.

**** how a person thinks it should be scored it should be scored according to the rules.

Why do you keep only bringing up defense and not all of the scoring criteria?