Pernell Whitaker v Juilo Cesar Chavez – Revisited!

I want to start a series here on the forum where we re-visit some of the old fights.

I would like to get your thoughts on how you saw the fights and what you think the outcome should have been, in some cases you may find that one of the fighters was past his best and that’s why he lost, therefore leading to your prediction of “if they both met in there prime then such and such would have one”. Others will highlight even though a fighter lost, you now have more respect for that fighter, and also a fight where the under dog won and the unthinkable happened.

I will post various fights to revisit during the series, please also comment on how you thought the fight would go, your feelings before the fight, during the fight and after, put as much info down as you like.

Let’s start with the first one,

Pernell Whitaker v Julio Cesar Chavez 10 September 1993
WBC welterweight title

I look forward to your posts!

I know Chavez got a lot of “stick” for this fight as the majority thought he should have had his first loss on his record.

I felt that if anything Whitaker maybe just edged it, although Chavez did put some work in, but it was clear to see that Chavez was past his best and the Welterweight division was a little step too far.

Based on this fight I will say that Chavez in his prime would beat Whitaker, obviously at a weight were it would suit them both. But Whitaker was unlucky not to get the decision!

pernell was robbed................. it should have been a ud for whitaker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frozensolid_702

pernell was robbed................. it should have been a ud for whitaker

---

agreed this was a fight that couldnt of gone either way it was clear cut victory for whitaker i think even chavezs fans even booed when scorecards were announced so that should tell you something

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Realitycheck77

I know Chavez got a lot of “stick” for this fight as the majority thought he should have had his first loss on his record.

I felt that if anything Whitaker maybe just edged it, although Chavez did put some work in, but it was clear to see that Chavez was past his best and the Welterweight division was a little step too far.

Based on this fight I will say that Chavez in his prime would beat Whitaker, obviously at a weight were it would suit them both. But Whitaker was unlucky not to get the decision!

---

sadclick for your ridiculous Chavez bias. ::**

I was really unsure about this fight before hand. Found it 50/50 wasnt sure whether to side with Chavez's aggresion or Whittakers defense. But hell did Pernell get robbed!

Pernell was robbed!!!

I had Pernell winning 8 rounds to 4, but it could've even been 9 to 3. Whitaker clearly outclassed Chavez, it should have been the crowning moment of his career, and he was completely robbed by two judges who were either blind, corrupt, or both. One judge had it 115-113 for Whitaker.

The weight had nothing to do with it. Sure, Chavez was moving up in weight from 140, but Whitaker wasn't a natural welterweight either. His natural class was 135 and he moved up in search of bigger fights. Prime Whitaker outclasses prime Chavez at 135, 140, 147, 154, wherever.

yea for me Pernell won this one with gas in the tank didnt think he wud at the time tho :)

Whitaker was robbed? (sad night for me)

THeres really nothing to revisit... Chavez won maybe 2 rounds imo and looked absolutely useless against Sweet Pea, he could never have even been competitive with Whittaker in that kind of shape, no matter how much better he could have been, he didn't the natural ability to beat Pernell and Whittaker himself was only better at the lighter weights..

Do i have to revisit that fight My all time favorite boxer getting robbed :'(

to be honest i have never known anyone who thought chavez derserved a draw i think even die hard chavez fans know he lost it wasnt close fight whitaker schooled him and got robbed it was like lewis vs holyfield 1 but worse

Whitaker vs. Chavez - Part One


[youtube=425,350]D56Bq5LrOo4[/youtube]

Whitaker vs. Chavez - Part Two


[youtube=425,350]WcXtxaualiM[/youtube]

heres highlights of whitaker getting robbed on page 1

Sad click for Smashcrusher, Nobody else gave me a sad click becuase they realised what I was doing, I'd posted this topic and nobody replied so I thought I would heat things up by saying Pernall edged it. I KNOW BLATENTLY PERNALL SHOULD HAVE GOT THE DECISION, but you have never read my prevoius posts on the forum, so therefore you woudn't have known that!

But I stand by saying, Chavez IMO would beat Pernall at Lightweight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Realitycheck77

But I stand by saying, Chavez IMO would beat Pernall at Lightweight.

---

Is there a specific reason why you think this? Because Pernell was even better at lightweight than he was at welter.

In fairness so was Chavez

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scrap

In fairness so was Chavez

---

In fairness Pernell was faster had a better defense quicker reflexes hit harder and threw more ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scrap

In fairness so was Chavez

---

Yes, but Pernell outclassed Chavez at 147 because he was a superb technician, was impossible to hit with big shots, and constantly beat Chavez to the punch. Why would any of these things be different at 135 or 140? Whitaker was even faster and harder to hit at that weight. Whitaker didn't even lose rounds at 135, let alone fights.

Sorry just making a point for debate, Ilike both fighters But felt because of style Pernell was always the one who would adapt to the bigger weight class. As a Lightweight maybe Chavez had more substance, but its not written in stone

The reason I go for Chavez at Lightweight is because he was a better “boxer” at the lighter weights, he had more agility, speed and his movement was better, but also he was tactically better equipped at the lighter weights, as he moved up he lost the above and only retained his fighting instinct, his movement in slipping a punch to come in to the body was not so well performed at welterweight.

Yes – Pernell would also be better at lightweight, but the difference would be greater for Chavez IMO, they way I see it is the lighter you go the better Chavez gets and the heavier you go the better Pernell gets.

I hope that makes sense.

Check out my Hagler v Monzon post – what do you think?

I always remembered back in those days Chavez was a Golden child of sorts, who was gonna be at the top regardless of what happened in the ring... Now let me preface this by saying CHAVEZ IS AN ALL TIME GREAT AND DESERVES HIS ACCOLADES but I have argued Meldrick Taylor got screwed to the end of the earth with many around here, couple that with the Screwing Whitaker got just makes me believe in the 1st sentence I wrote...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Realitycheck77

The reason I go for Chavez at Lightweight is because he was a better “boxer” at the lighter weights, he had more agility, speed and his movement was better, but also he was tactically better equipped at the lighter weights, as he moved up he lost the above and only retained his fighting instinct, his movement in slipping a punch to come in to the body was not so well performed at welterweight.

Yes – Pernell would also be better at lightweight, but the difference would be greater for Chavez IMO, they way I see it is the lighter you go the better Chavez gets and the heavier you go the better Pernell gets.

---

Good points, I certainly see where you're coming from. My argument is just that the style matchup would always favor Whitaker no matter what the weight class. Chavez's style was always based on accumulation of punishment, wearing down his opponent by working the body round after round. But this style, which is based on constantly putting leather on your opponent, is very tough to use against an opponent like Whitaker who is almost impossible to hit. In Whitaker's prime, the only way you could possibly beat him was to land a big shot and knock him out. This never happened of course. You just couldn't beat him by outscoring him or slowly wearing him down, because he was always landing twice or three times as much as his opponent.
Defense wins in every sport, including boxing, and in his prime Whitaker was by far the best defender in the game, and he could do it while throwing tons of punches himself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JT Rock

I always remembered back in those days Chavez was a Golden child of sorts, who was gonna be at the top regardless of what happened in the ring... Now let me preface this by saying CHAVEZ IS AN ALL TIME GREAT AND DESERVES HIS ACCOLADES but I have argued Meldrick Taylor got screwed to the end of the earth with many around here, couple that with the Screwing Whitaker got just makes me believe in the 1st sentence I wrote...

---

Funny you bring up Taylor. Just yesterday, I was watching the Legendary Nights episode of Taylor-Chavez on HBO, and I'd completely forgotten that Taylor, like Pernell, was also managed by Dan Duva. Duva almost attacked Richard Steele in the ring after he stopped the Taylor fight, so he must have gone even more nuts when Pernell got robbed. My dvd of Whitaker-Chavez ends right after the decision is announced. Did Duva go crazy after the draw was announced?

No matter if this guy was trying to heat the arguement up by saying Whitaker just edged him or if he was being serious it was a poor statement. Saying 8-4 is being very generous, it was more like 10-2, and with the ass whoppin Pernell gave him I don't see how anybody could think it would be different at any other weight, it was totally one sided.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Realitycheck77

I want to start a series here on the forum where we re-visit some of the old fights.

I would like to get your thoughts on how you saw the fights and what you think the outcome should have been, in some cases you may find that one of the fighters was past his best and that’s why he lost, therefore leading to your prediction of “if they both met in there prime then such and such would have one”. Others will highlight even though a fighter lost, you now have more respect for that fighter, and also a fight where the under dog won and the unthinkable happened.

I will post various fights to revisit during the series, please also comment on how you thought the fight would go, your feelings before the fight, during the fight and after, put as much info down as you like.

Let’s start with the first one,

Pernell Whitaker v Julio Cesar Chavez 10 September 1993
WBC welterweight title

I look forward to your posts!

---

I love you vision and you have a great idea, you will be big on this forum with ideas like this.

Wacko 3205- Round by Round
Killersheep- Virtual Sportsbook
El Gamo- Article King
Etc
Realitycheck77- Fights Revisited.

Good Niche. But as far as your comments on this fight, you need a reality check.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brazilianbomber

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Realitycheck77

I want to start a series here on the forum where we re-visit some of the old fights.

I would like to get your thoughts on how you saw the fights and what you think the outcome should have been, in some cases you may find that one of the fighters was past his best and that’s why he lost, therefore leading to your prediction of “if they both met in there prime then such and such would have one”. Others will highlight even though a fighter lost, you now have more respect for that fighter, and also a fight where the under dog won and the unthinkable happened.

I will post various fights to revisit during the series, please also comment on how you thought the fight would go, your feelings before the fight, during the fight and after, put as much info down as you like.

Let’s start with the first one,

Pernell Whitaker v Julio Cesar Chavez 10 September 1993
WBC welterweight title

I look forward to your posts!

---

I love you vision and you have a great idea, you will be big on this forum with ideas like this.

Wacko 3205- Round by Round
Killersheep- Virtual Sportsbook
El Gamo- Article King
Etc
Realitycheck77- Fights Revisited.

Good Niche. But as far as your comments on this fight, you need a reality check.

---

hey brazilian you also forgot


ICE COLD BOXING=spammer :P

Brazilian - I respect your opinion, but SERIOUS I was just heating things up, I know Pernell won, I have over 3700 full fights in my collection and this is one of them, I was just p***ed off that nobody was posting, I will be alot more professional from now on.

Please take time to read my latest post - Monzon v Hagler – What Happened? and tell me what you think?

Thanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Realitycheck77

Brazilian - I respect your opinion, but SERIOUS I was just heating things up, I know Pernell won, I have over 3700 full fights in my collection and this is one of them, I was just p***ed off that nobody was posting, I will be alot more professional from now on.

Please take time to read my latest post - Monzon v Hagler – What Happened? and tell me what you think?

Thanks.

---

I read it i think hagler by decision but good work anyway

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICE COLD BOXING

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Realitycheck77

Brazilian - I respect your opinion, but SERIOUS I was just heating things up, I know Pernell won, I have over 3700 full fights in my collection and this is one of them, I was just p***ed off that nobody was posting, I will be alot more professional from now on.

Please take time to read my latest post - Monzon v Hagler – What Happened? and tell me what you think?

Thanks.

---

I read it i think hagler by decision but good work anyway

---

Thanks

At 130 pounds, Chavez was winning 7-5 type decisions off the likes of Lockridge and Laporte. I'd say Pea could do just a tad better and win 7 rounds off Chavez.

This discussion a couple weeks ago made me want to go back and watch this fight one more time. Finally got the chance tonight.

An even worse decision than I remembered. I had it 9 rounds to 3, and the 3 rounds I gave to Chavez were all relatively close, he didn't dominate any one round. Meanwhile 5 or 6 of the rounds that Pernell won were lopsided. He basically teed off on Chavez's face for rounds 7-11.

Wow what a corrupt decision. Even Chavez looked embarrassed when the draw was announced.

Next up I'll have to watch Whitaker- De La Hoya again. That one was certainly much, much closer.

Peat put the beat down on my man JJC, no doubt about that. I was at ringside for that match in the Alamodome , I can recall the Mexican crowd was favoring Chavez before the fight, when the decision was read, I remember everyone shaking their heads like, what the fuck just happened. O0

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lords Gym

Peat put the beat down on my man JJC, no doubt about that.  I was at ringside for that match in the Alamodome , I can recall the Mexican crowd was favoring Chavez before the fight, when the decision was read, I remember everyone shaking their heads like, what the F*** just happened.  O0

---

really whitaker could of gone underfeated because dela hoya decision could of gone his way chavez decision was robbery and that other guy he lost to forgot his name was robbery aswell only time he ever lost convincly was to tito and he was past his best then in his prime he could of gone underfeated agreed ??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICE COLD BOXING

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lords Gym

Peat put the beat down on my man JJC, no doubt about that. I was at ringside for that match in the Alamodome , I can recall the Mexican crowd was favoring Chavez before the fight, when the decision was read, I remember everyone shaking their heads like, what the F*** just happened. O0

---

really whitaker could of gone underfeated because dela hoya decision could of gone his way chavez decision was robbery and that other guy he lost to forgot his name was robbery aswell only time he ever lost convincly was to tito and he was past his best then in his prime he could of gone underfeated agreed ??

---

I agree, I thought Peat beat ODLH, by several points. Peat was not getting hit a lot of the time when ODLH would flurry. the judges were not picking up on that.. that’s my only explanation ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lords Gym

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICE COLD BOXING

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lords Gym

Peat put the beat down on my man JJC, no doubt about that. I was at ringside for that match in the Alamodome , I can recall the Mexican crowd was favoring Chavez before the fight, when the decision was read, I remember everyone shaking their heads like, what the F*** just happened. O0

---

really whitaker could of gone underfeated because dela hoya decision could of gone his way chavez decision was robbery and that other guy he lost to forgot his name was robbery aswell only time he ever lost convincly was to tito and he was past his best then in his prime he could of gone underfeated agreed ??

---

I agree, I thought Peat beat ODLH, by several points. Peat was not getting hit a lot of the time when ODLH would flurry. the judges were not picking up on that.. that’s my only explanation ?

---

same here mate i had whitaker winning aswell but it was close fight but i still feel whitaker should of got the nod

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICE COLD BOXING

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lords Gym

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICE COLD BOXING

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lords Gym

Peat put the beat down on my man JJC, no doubt about that. I was at ringside for that match in the Alamodome , I can recall the Mexican crowd was favoring Chavez before the fight, when the decision was read, I remember everyone shaking their heads like, what the F*** just happened. O0

---

really whitaker could of gone underfeated because dela hoya decision could of gone his way chavez decision was robbery and that other guy he lost to forgot his name was robbery aswell only time he ever lost convincly was to tito and he was past his best then in his prime he could of gone underfeated agreed ??

---

I agree, I thought Peat beat ODLH, by several points. Peat was not getting hit a lot of the time when ODLH would flurry. the judges were not picking up on that.. that’s my only explanation ?

---

same here mate i had whitaker winning aswell but it was close fight but i still feel whitaker should of got the nod

---

I agree with you all. The other robbery was against Ramirez which was just as bad as Chavez. Even though he lost convincingly he won three rounds strait out of rehab which is impressive against a champ like Tito.