Whitaker vs Ramirez I

[Scott9945]

You are wrong.

The second fight was a completely different fight. Whitaker's magnum opus. Absolute perfection. This fight was full of mistakes and I challenge anyone to score the fight without bias and come to a dominant victory for Whitaker.

They show that fight all the time on ESPN Classic. Countless people have watched that fight and realized that they saw a robbery. Ramirez was simply outboxed and outclassed. Both men are long out of boxing, so why would there be any bias from people watching it now?

[Dan...]

I have to disagree Shawn. I watched the fight not too long ago and I thought Pernell won a reasonably comfortable decision.

[JAB5239]

I've watched it 5 or 6 time, I haven't been able to give Ramirez more than 4 rounds and I was being kind to him.

I saw it again on ESPN classic a month or so ago, and it was STILL a robbery. Nothing has changed.

[Silencers]

I have a feeling that you have not taken the time to score the fight, but instead have watched it to see Whitaker.

I've scored that fight 4 times, not once have I given Ramirez more than 4 rounds.

[oldgringo]

You are wrong.

The second fight was a completely different fight. Whitaker's magnum opus. Absolute perfection. This fight was full of mistakes and I challenge anyone to score the fight without bias and come to a dominant victory for Whitaker.

I am right.

Closer action in the first? Sure. Whitaker was not quite the virtuoso he was by late '89 (he learned A LOT from that first fight, evident as early as Haugen bout), but he still controlled Ramirez in both fights. I saw it as a clear victory for Whitaker. Dominant? Not like the second bout, but surely a win.

I challenge anyone to explain how a 118-112 or whatever card for Ramirez is even remotely possible. The whole thing stunk of a hometown bull**** decision. That's why it's popular opinion that the fight was a robbery, one of the most significant of the 1980's in fact.

[!! Shawn]

They show that fight all the time on ESPN Classic. Countless people have watched that fight and realized that they saw a robbery. Ramirez was simply outboxed and outclassed. Both men are long out of boxing, so why would there be any bias from people watching it now?

Because the fight is shown as a Whitaker fight in series with other Whitaker fights. When you watch a fight just to see one fighter, you are prone to severe bias, regardless as to your views on the fighter.

You will watch the fighter, and not his opponent. You will not see anything his opponent is doing, and your view of the fight will be skewed.

I can live with 1 point for Whitaker, but anything larger than that is simply exhibiting bias, and inability to score a fight objectively.

Round 3 could have gone to Whitaker, Round 7 could have gone to Whitaker or Ramirez, every other round was pretty clear cut with the exception of round 10 which was the least eventful round of the fight, neither fighter doing much, it could have gone either way, but in a round where neither fighter is doing anything, I give the round to the fighter that is not holding.

Three rounds I can switch to Whitaker to get Whitaker by 1 but anything beyond that is dishonest.

Either way, this fight was FAR from the robbery it is often portrayed to be.

[!! Shawn]

I am right.

Closer action in the first? Sure. Whitaker was not quite the virtuoso he was by late '89 (he learned A LOT from that first fight, evident as early as Haugen bout), but he still controlled Ramirez in both fights. I saw it as a clear victory for Whitaker. Dominant? Not like the second bout, but surely a win.

I challenge anyone to explain how a 118-112 or whatever card for Ramirez is even remotely possible. The whole thing stunk of a hometown bull**** decision. That's why it's popular opinion that the fight was a robbery, one of the most significant of the 1980's in fact.

Yes, those scorecards were bull****. No denying that, 118-112 is not even remotely possible.

I agree that Whitaker learned a lot from this fight. It changed his style and without the loss, I doubt we would have seen him develop into the fighter we know and love.

However, he still did not control the pace of this fight. That is evident if from nothing else, the fact that he gassed out.

I have a hard time believing that a Whitaker that had already gone the 12 round distance in his career would misjudge his energy expenditure by such a horrific margin.

Whitaker was on borrowed legs by the 9th round. He was grabbing and holding at every chance he could to catch his breath. Whitaker did not control that fight.

After round 4, Ramirez was firmly in control of the pace.

[Scott9945]

Because the fight is shown as a Whitaker fight in series with other Whitaker fights. When you watch a fight just to see one fighter, you are prone to severe bias, regardless as to your views on the fighter.

You will watch the fighter, and not his opponent. You will not see anything his opponent is doing, and your view of the fight will be skewed.

I can live with 1 point for Whitaker, but anything larger than that is simply exhibiting bias, and inability to score a fight objectively.

Round 3 could have gone to Whitaker, Round 7 could have gone to Whitaker or Ramirez, every other round was pretty clear cut with the exception of round 10 which was the least eventful round of the fight, neither fighter doing much, it could have gone either way, but in a round where neither fighter is doing anything, I give the round to the fighter that is not holding.

Three rounds I can switch to Whitaker to get Whitaker by 1 but anything beyond that is dishonest.

Either way, this fight was FAR from the robbery it is often portrayed to be.

I've watched a lot of fights for a long time now, and have learned how to watch them objectively. I'm sure I've been wrong about a few, but definitely not this one. Since at least 95% of the other people watching it agree that it wasn't even close, every indication is that you are the oddball here. This wasn't being shown as any part of a Whitaker series and to be honest that just sounds like rationalization to validate your viewpoint. The announcers on the ESPN overdub are flabbergasted at how bad that decision was. Do they have some agenda to promote Whitaker?

[!! Shawn]

I've watched a lot of fights for a long time now, and have learned how to watch them objectively. I'm sure I've been wrong about a few, but definitely not this one. Since at least 95% of the other people watching it agree that it wasn't even close, every indication is that you are the oddball here. This wasn't being shown as any part of a Whitaker series and to be honest that just sounds like rationalization to validate your viewpoint. The announcers on the ESPN overdub are flabbergasted at how bad that decision was. Do they have some agenda to promote Whitaker?

Actually, Mancini scored it 7-5 Whitaker. That is within my realm of acceptable scores of 1 round for Whitaker. Your assertion that the fight was not even close is wrong. I don't know how to make it more clear.

[Scott9945]

Actually, Mancini scored it 7-5 Whitaker. That is within my realm of acceptable scores of 1 round for Whitaker. Your assertion that the fight was not even close is wrong. I don't know how to make it more clear.

Well it looks like I'm going to have to watch it again now.