If that is the first fight, that was an even bigger robbery than when Pernell whipped up on Chavez. Whitaker won the first Ramirez fight 9 rounds to 3, or 10 rounds to 2, and they gave it to Ramirez in the worst decision of the 1980's. Lou Duva went ballistic on the post fight interview calling Sulaiman a thief and Jose Sulaiman filed a lawsuti against him.
I always thought the first fight was pretty overrated as "robberies" go. Ramirez did much better than all the fans made out, some ten years later. When I finally got a chance to see it, it was one of the first concrete bits of evidence that I compiled, that lead me to believe that boxing fans in general; are a stupid, completely biased bunch.
I never thought Whitaker was a good defensive fighter. The only strong part of his game was his power and chin.
see that. win or lose this fight is no way one-sided. ramirez is landing almost as many jabs as whitaker. and he's throwin more power shots too. whitaker's makin him look bad when he misses with those looping left hands, but missed punches don't decide a round. plus, ramirez was handled easier by some other guys - that unfortunately can affect judging even if it's not fair.
what the hell? Im not an "alias". Seriously, I dont think he was a very good defensive fighter. sorry. You could hit him with the jab at will.
Even his chin and power were overated, he would put all his body weight behind those punches and nothing, 10 ko's? Paulie Malignaggi is a much better version of Pernell Whitaker, and alot better defensively.
Ramirez won both fight IMO, the only reason the judges gave the 2nd fight to Whitaker was because it took place in Norfolk. The judges would be beaten down by the crowd if they gave it to the real winner JOSE LUIS RAMIREZ!
Anyone that thinks this fight was even remotely close is guilty of Revisionist History. That fight was a Wipe Out win for Pernell. I saw it live, and I have the original tape, and 19 years later it is still as one-sided today in favor of Whitaker as it was then.
what are we, pre-teens? have we now decided that teenage banter is too tricky and wrought with confusion? and that further descent into absurdity is needed?
well, at least you're consistent. you also thought PBF.ODH was one-sided. so i can see that you favor a certain style and display of skill. imo, a bias like that can distort the criteria for scoring a fight, and give a false impression.
"Book Reader" you must be having your face in a novel and not on the fight itself. That fight was a rout win for Pernell. BTW: Floyd won the "Sparring Session" with the Golden Boy, 10 rounds to 2.
round 7, his corner's telling him he needs to suck it up, but it's not remotely close. ramirez made the mistake of following pea around, but he controlled the pace, and landed consistently. pea obviously had the better form.
now it's 10-2? :laughing: i really think it's about what you like. do you like the crafty guy who makes you miss, and pops the jab, or do you like the guy coming forward, countering with his jab and throwin to the body. i don't think any objective (or close to objective) view of this fight could characterize it as one-sided or a "route" as you call it. i'd say stand on your head and watch it, or move your tv to the other side of the room, or turn the tv up-side down, but it's probably not worth the trouble and i doubt it would help.
I would say that the great majority of fights that people call "robberies" are exaggerated. Hell, even Whitaker-Chavez was exaggerated. I thought Whitaker won that (8-4), but it's still exaggerated how bad it was. The main problem with that fight was that Whitaker won his rounds by wider margins while Chavez's rounds were closer. Yeah, if the fight ends he might even attack the ref. ::
