Feather-fisted Brilliance

I've heard his win over Haugen cited many times as being his best performance. Certainly he wasn't Whitaker's best opponent. But when it takes a guy as limited as Haugen to reveal the best a fighter has to show, it's pretty telling.

And I think you're confusing my argument against Whitaker's characterization as some genius fighter with my "feelings" about the guy. I always thought he was a clown in the ring, and never had anything against him personally. I just can't stand to watch him fight and I think he's hugely over-rated. Sorry if that hurts your feelings to hear me say that.

And for those who say Whitaker's best performance came against Haugen, it's like saying ODH's best performance was against Coley. Or that RJJ's best performance was against Richard Hall (I've actually heard people make that claim by the way).

A. Yes, I've watched Whitaker vs. Nelson. I have two copies of it on DVD
B. Yes, I've watched Whitaker vs. Ramirez. I also have the fight on DVD.
C. Yes, I've watched ODH vs. Whitaker. I have it on DVD.

I have several other Whitaker fights as well. I have his fight with Chavez, his fight with McGirt, his fight with Trinidad, his fights with Rivera.

Just because we don't see eye to eye on the complexion of those fights doesn't mean I haven't seen them. And that's why your signature comes off as so arrogant and contrary to what a discussion board should be.

Should we all just close our eyes and look to you for the interpretation of what's occurred in annals of boxing history? Because it sounds to me like that's what you would like us all to do.

As far as the name-calling, it should come as no surprise when the tone in your every response to me is malicious, condescending and arrogant.

Just because your responses are subty insulting and argumentative, it doesn't make them any less insulting that name-calling. Afterall, I'm positive now that you're a prick.

 

WOW!!!...


REED::

 

Haven't read much of what this debate is about, but Whitaker wasn't all that effective offensively vs. Chavez or Ramirez in the first fight. If any two "robberies" are overrated and changed over time, it's these two fights.

Chavez and Ramirez both won no less than a third of each contest.

 

Roy's BEST performance is of course against Toney. But Hall was his most entertaining performance.

 

LOL. It's always funny when folks don't have a leg to stand on they try to fall back on things being "subtly" something. :: Trust me...when I insult you, you will know it. There's nothing subtle about me.

You sound like Jaws, desperately trying to float his "subtle" hatred of Pacquiao theory because it's easier than actually understanding what is being said. Maybe you should focus on what actually happened in boxing matches and what folks actually say instead of spinning them into something that fits neatly into whatever dislike filled diatribe you currently have going on.

Your hatred of Whitaker is well know on this forum and so is your posting M.O. - You post something negative and/or not true against fighters you don't like...you get called on it and usually given a hard time...and then you lash out and call the other people names. You are quite predictable.

And as for being arrogant. This little gem speaks volumes about you:

I just don't see it. More than anything, the guy was a spoiler. He was good at imposing his will on other fighters, and making them miss, but he wasn't the virtuoso you make him out to be and I think anyone who watches three or more of his fights would agree.

So what you're saying here is that anyone who disagrees with what you are saying here can't possibly have seen many, if any, of Whitaker's fights. And that is what I was mocking when I said "I don't believe that you have watched this fight" over and over again. So maybe you should practice what you preach before you start getting pissy.

And you are now backtracking on Haugen. You didn't say it was his best performance, you said it was his best win...which is an attempt by you to disparage Whitaker's resume (you know...because of the you hating him and all that). Don't change your tune...if you think Haugen was Whitaker's best win, then back it up with facts. Don't try to reword it or say something like "they" said it. That is like when folks try to fall back using something is "arguably something"...which is another thing which is said when it isn't true but sounds good in support of an argument. If you're not worried about what others think...then why use others in support of your notion that Haugen was Whitaker's best win? I know why...because you know it was a B.S. claim that you made to try to make Whitaker look bad.

And I'm not confusing anything. You have always been a Whitaker hater and you will continue to do so. You could at least man up and admit it.

 

WOW!!!!...



REED::

 

Joe Calzaghe didn't punch very hard for an elite fighter

 

Whitaker had some power in that left hand when he loaded up on it. He turned the Hurtado fight around with the first of those left hands (good job Mercante), stunned Chavez in the 8th round of their fight with a left hand, dropped or stopped some other guys with it.

I would put Whitaker above the "feather-fisted" category and consider him a so-so puncher.

 

I actually agree with him on a R-B-R basis. I had Whitaker winning both of those fights 8-4.

But I thought Whitaker definitely won more clear rounds than Chavez. The rounds I gave to JCC were closer.

 

REED was "Wow" ing Tam's Assertion that those Bouts WEREN'T Robberies...If U Only Win 4 of 12 Rounds & RECEIVE the Verdict (or even a Draw), that Means the OTHER Guy Got ROBBED...


REED:hammert:

 

Yep.

 

He punched ok. He had good natural power I'd say just that 75% of the shots he threw were arm punches. Maybe a similar deal with Pernel actually....not that he threw arm punches just that he didn't sit down on the vast majority of his shots made him seem much more 'feather fisted' than he naturally was.

 

Come to think of it, didn't Whitaker knock ODH down? It was called a slip but it was clearly a knock-down. Although ODH was off balance when he got hit if I'm not mistaken which is probably why nobody's mentioned it.

 

You don't knock Eubanks down if you have no pop.

MTF

 

The fuck it does. No where did I say that either fighter only won four rounds, I said they won AT LEAST four and Im not arrogant enough to assume that because I score a fight 8-4 that everyone should have.

Ramirez and Chavez won rounds and forced Whitaker into fighting almost completely defensive minded fights.

There are literally hundreds of fights out there that I'd call "robbery" before either of those.

 

So WHAT Rounds did U Give to Chavez, Tam???...ENOUGH w/the Contrarian BULLSHIT, HOW'D YOU Score Whittaker-Chavez???...


REED:boohoo:

 

best case scenario for chavez is that he lost 7 rounds to 4 versus whitaker. that's stretching for jc superstar

 

7-5 or something like that. I don't re-score fights, mate. I do it like a judge and I think we all should, to be honest.

 

pernell clearly won both fights (chavez and ramirez 1)

both times he clearly won, but never was the fight an outright robbery is what i assume (and hope) tam tam was trying to say.

for example things like courtney burton vs emmanuel augustus and ken norton-ali 3 are actual "robberies"

fights like hearns-leonard 2, duran-barkley...not as much.

 

Yeah Pea was sooo defensive vs Chavez he just outpunched, outlanded and hurt him on various occasions throughout the fight :notallthere:

 

For the life of me, I don't understand when folks say that one fighter clearly won, but it wasn't a robbery. If I think one fighter has clearly won a fight, and the decision goes the other way...then, yes I think it was a bad decision and the fighter who won clearly was robbed. To me if a fighter has won "clearly" then there is no doubt who the winner is.

On the night of the fight...the most I saw Chavez winning is 4 rounds...and every time I have watched that fight I felt the same way.

 

You're one of my favorite posters here, Tam...but I have to disagree. When that fight ended it never even occurred to me that Whitaker might not get the decision.

 

Well, thats cool and you're entitlted to that opinion. I can certainly see why you might have come to it. No issue here.

BTW, I never said that I thought Whitaker "clearly" won. Because I don't. I score the fights for him, but there were close rounds and I never had an issue with a draw.

 

Actually...I wasn't referring to you as someone who said it was clear for Whitaker. I was responding to Winner by Choke who said Whitaker clearly won but it wasn't a robbery. To me, it's one or the other. If someone thinks the fight was won clearly by "Fighter A", then I don't see how that same person thinking "Fighter B" getting the decision (or a draw) isn't a bad call.

I just don't get it. :dunno:

But then again...we have folks here who think fighters can be "shot" and then "not shot" and then "shot" again.::

 

It boggles my mind that anyone could watch Whitaker/Chavez and think that fight in any way was a draw

And Whitaker/Ramirez I was clearly a horrible decision

Even with a broken left hand, Whitaker won that fight going away

If that isnt a robbery, then there is no such thing as a robbery

 

It boggles my mind that anyone could watch Whitaker/Chavez and think that fight in any way was a draw

And Whitaker/Ramirez I was clearly a horrible decision

Even with a broken left hand, Whitaker won that fight going away

If that isnt a robbery, then there is no such thing as a robbery

 

ok! ok! we get it. you're mesmerized by Whitaker's skills.

 

Ok! Ok!, we Get It...U HATE Whittaker Because he's a "Hippety-Hop" Fighter...If he ATE 3 Punches to Land 1 & had the Footwork of a DRUNKEN SLOTH, U'd have a BETTER Appreciation for his "Skills"...


REED:shit:

 

Doh! Beat me to it... ::

 

I think some folks mistake a fighter who was "robbed" with a fighter who wins every round in a fight. Like I said in a previous post... if you think fighter A clearly won, and fighter B gets the decision or a draw...then, yes, you are justified in thinking a fighter A got robbed.