Ramirez W12 Whittaker - Still the worst decision in history ?? - 27 years later ..

Don't think this fight will ever be topped..........Although we can speak too soon...

Many including me didn't give Ramirez a round.........

If anybody can give me a fight that stunk more before or since please post.....

Louis Michel - 116-115
Newton Campos 118-113
Harry Gibbs 113-117..........(This scorecard sucked too !!)

Don't moan about the Chick who did Mayweather-Alvarez until you've seen this fight..

Biggest stink in history !!

I think it's the worst I've ever seen in a world title fight, Truss. Maybe there have been bigger stitch ups tucked away from the limelight in small hall shows, particularly back in the Mob era. But yep, in terms of being in full view of the boxing world it's as blatant a case of larceny as you could ever wish to see.

If you were being ultra-kind to Ramirez, you could maybe give him three rounds. Ramirez was totally bedazzled in the early and late rounds, but did ok in the middle ones, round about the same time Pea picked up his broken hand. 117-111 to Whitaker would have been an acceptable score, but it could have been wider and was in many people's eyes, as you say.

The signs were ominous the day before, when Chavez's representatives gatecrashed the weigh in trying to force Main Events to sign for a defence against Julio if Whitaker was to beat Ramirez. After the weigh in, Duva gave an interview in which he predicted that, if he didn't knock Ramirez out, Whitaker would lose the decision no matter how dominant he'd been, which he reminded everyone of in his very angry post-fight interview!

Has a few rivals when it comes to being the most apalling verdict ever returned in a world title bout, but probably hasn't been surpassed so far.

True shocker, the chavez Whittaker scoring wasn't a whole lot better. I guess you could argue he didn't have a judge friendly style. Its one thing against Mexicans or with  Latin judges but I thought the cards against nelson didn't flatter him either.

Castro-smith wharton my personal 'favourite' shocker. Or any fight with Sven ottke.

Jones - Kim has to be the worst Amateur one I've seen...

Although Canada's Shawn O'sullivan was robbed of a gold in 84 against Tate.

Probably not as bad but I remember Johnny Nelson got a gift in one of his CW defences and he, the crowd, the commentators and Brendan Ingle knew it. The look of relief Nelson's face was too much to stomach...think he stuck his tongue out when the result was called. As I said, not the worst result in the world but back then I was begging ANYONE to beat Nelson as I was sick of the sight of him.

Nelson winning the WBF HW title ranks as one of the lowest points in boxing history

As far as judging scores are concerned, my favourite has always been Eugenia Williams score of Holyfield 115 - 113 Lewis (Lewis Holyfield 1). She couldn't score the 5th properly because "Lewis was in the way". Hotels and nights out paid for by Mr Don King and there was also a report, not long after the fight, I'm pretty sure it was in the Guardian or Observer, where they made claim to her mortgage having recently been paid off by Don King, as in weeks before the fight.

This is all I could find but I will do some more research when I have time.

http://lubbockonline.com/stories/031699/spo_031699091.shtml

I remember that............

One of the worst over here was Jorrin-Brodie...

So much for home advantage when you're against a Mexican fighting for the WBC..

RatBoy66 wrote:As far as judging scores are concerned, my favourite has always been Eugenia Williams score of Holyfield 115 - 113 Lewis (Lewis Holyfield 1). She couldn't score the 5th properly because "Lewis was in the way". Hotels and nights out paid for by Mr Don King and there was also a report, not long after the fight, I'm pretty sure it was in the Guardian or Observer, where they made claim to her mortgage having recently been paid off by Don King, as in weeks before the fight.

This is all I could find but I will do some more research when I have time.

http://lubbockonline.com/stories/031699/spo_031699091.shtml      

Always thought Williams said that the press photographers were in the way and that's why she could see the action in the fifth.

Of course watching dear old Jose personally altering the scorecard in the Brodie-Chi fight ranks as one of the more strange nights I've witnessed (even though Michael got a draw out of it instead of a loss)

DAVE667 wrote:Probably not as bad but I remember Johnny Nelson got a gift in one of his CW defences and he, the crowd, the commentators and Brendan Ingle knew it. The look of relief Nelson's face was too much to stomach...think he stuck his tongue out when the result was called. As I said, not the worst result in the world but back then I was begging ANYONE to beat Nelson as I was sick of the sight of him.

Nelson winning the WBF HW title ranks as one of the lowest points in boxing history

Was probably the Guillermo Jones defence Dave. I was there, Nelson was given a draw, which was ridiculously generous. However, Jones went on to fail the post fight drug test so justice was probably served all told.

DAVE667 wrote:

RatBoy66 wrote:As far as judging scores are concerned, my favourite has always been Eugenia Williams score of Holyfield 115 - 113 Lewis (Lewis Holyfield 1). She couldn't score the 5th properly because "Lewis was in the way". Hotels and nights out paid for by Mr Don King and there was also a report, not long after the fight, I'm pretty sure it was in the Guardian or Observer, where they made claim to her mortgage having recently been paid off by Don King, as in weeks before the fight.

This is all I could find but I will do some more research when I have time.

http://lubbockonline.com/stories/031699/spo_031699091.shtml      

Always thought Williams said that the press photographers were in the way and that's why she could see the action in the fifth.

Of course watching dear old Jose personally altering the scorecard in the Brodie-Chi fight ranks as one of the more strange nights I've witnessed (even though Michael got a draw out of it instead of a loss)

She did blame the photographers but then changed her story, if my old muddled head serves me correctly, and then blamed Lewis. Like I say I'll do a bit more research when I have time. It was back in the day when t'internet weren't that common so I don't know if the newspaper reports would be available online.

Any Sven Ottke fight would be a good shout.

Roger Tillerman should never have been allowed anywhere near a professional boxing ring again after his refereeing display in the Ried-Ottke fight.

I had that fight 117-111 to Reid, but accept it could have been closer due to the scrappy nature of many of the rounds. Neither guy was really on top of their game on the night. But even allowing for that I can't see how anyone could have anything other than a Reid win, even if it was only by a couple of points.

What made it worse was that Ottke was so contemptuously smug even during the fight - it was so painfully obvious that he knew he was being protected and that he'd get away with it. Keep in mind that he'd spent the first three rounds complaining and looking to the ref constantly - in round four of that fight he charges right in to Reid head-first, a clearly deliberate butt, and after he gets in to the clinch he actually raises his arm to his supporters to say, "Ha, did you see that? Can you believe I'm getting away with this!?" Not so much as a whisper in the ear from Tillerman for that one, but he was chirping away at Reid for every little (imaginary) infraction.

For anyone who hasn't seen it, in the fifth round Reid was actually warned for hitting Ottke in the face, the naughty bleeder. No excuses about it being on the break, or borderline legal etc - it was a right hand lead thrown at mid range. It cracked Ottke and Tillerman stepped in, paused the fight and warned Reid. In the next round, Reid had a point taken away for a 'headbutt.' What actually happened was that Ottke threw a punch, missed and fell in to Reid, and their shoulders collided. Heads nowhere near each other's.

You could see as the fight went on that Reid was becoming more and more wary of letting his hands go, as he knew he'd likely be disqualified if he had the temerity to land a big shot on Ottke and hurt him.

Sorry, lads - am I ranting here!?

Let it out Chris.....

You feel the same as me when Holmes got the shaft in Spinks 2........Larry was one of my faves back then....

88Chris05 wrote:Roger Tillerman should never have been allowed anywhere near a professional boxing ring again after his refereeing display in the Ried-Ottke fight.

I had that fight 117-111 to Reid, but accept it could have been closer due to the scrappy nature of many of the rounds. Neither guy was really on top of their game on the night. But even allowing for that I can't see how anyone could have anything other than a Reid win, even if it was only by a couple of points.

What made it worse was that Ottke was so contemptuously smug even during the fight - it was so painfully obvious that he knew he was being protected and that he'd get away with it. Keep in mind that he'd spent the first three rounds complaining and looking to the ref constantly - in round four of that fight he charges right in to Reid head-first, a clearly deliberate butt, and after he gets in to the clinch he actually raises his arm to his supporters to say, "Ha, did you see that? Can you believe I'm getting away with this!?" Not so much as a whisper in the ear from Tillerman for that one, but he was chirping away at Reid for every little (imaginary) infraction.

For anyone who hasn't seen it, in the fifth round Reid was actually warned for hitting Ottke in the face, the naughty bleeder. No excuses about it being on the break, or borderline legal etc - it was a right hand lead thrown at mid range. It cracked Ottke and Tillerman stepped in, paused the fight and warned Reid. In the next round, Reid had a point taken away for a 'headbutt.' What actually happened was that Ottke threw a punch, missed and fell in to Reid, and their shoulders collided. Heads nowhere near each other's.

You could see as the fight went on that Reid was becoming more and more wary of letting his hands go, as he knew he'd likely be disqualified if he had the temerity to land a big shot on Ottke and hurt him.

Sorry, lads - am I ranting here!?

Talking about referees what about the guy in the Bute fight.............Was it Andrade ??

dear oh dear...........You could smell him at the South Pole..

Which ref went into the dressing rooms telling Mayweather it was an honour to officiate one of his matches?

The referee didn't cover himself in glory there, Truss, but....

By the letter of the law, Andrade wasn't really robbed outright as is often claimed as a gimme. Bute went down with about five seconds left in the twelfth round (check the clock). The ref was late in picking up the count, but if you look at the time elapsed between Bute going down and getting back to his feet (albeit unsteadily) it was about six or seven seconds, so he would have beaten any count the referee issued - and there would have been zero time left in the fight regardless, not a single second. Even if the referee hadn't stopped to tell Andrade to get back to the neutral corner, Andrade would never have been able to throw another shot in the fight. Twelve rounds was up.

You could argue that, if you were the referee, you'd have stopped him before he even went down of course, as he was badly hurt and looked ragged, but that's a subjective call and you can't say with any certainty that the referee in question definitely should have stopped it, or definitely would have done in other circumstances.

Again, you could argue that if you were the referee you'd have decided that Bute was in no fit condition to continue even though he beat the count, in which case technically speaking Andrade TKOd Bute in your eyes before a full twelve rounds was up....But again, that's a subjective call. Fighters in worse conditions have been waved back in and I don't think anyone can say with any absolute certainty that Bute wouldn't have been allowed to continue had it been an earlier round.

Bute rode his luck and I do have some misgivings over it. But there's some grey area there.

I think it stank but you do make a good case..

Should open a practice with Super..

I think you could make a case for a draw in the ottke Reid fight Chris. Reid got dispirited after being warned for punching. Not the worst judging but easily the most corrupt officiating I've ever witnessed.

Having discounted refs as a mitigating factor to raf yesterday, this would be my most obvious exception

Mayweather - Chavez 2 was one of the worst cases of refereeing I ever saw......Poor old Mayweather had two opponents that night..

Steele's officiating in the Bruno fight was a disgrace also.

Got to be honest, Truss, I don't remember any particularly bad reffing in the second Chavez-Mayweather fight. Can you jog my memory? Genuinely all I can remember from that fight was Uncle Roger taking the early rounds, but running out of steam later as Chavez eventually got close enough to make him pay for his lack of an inside game and his questionable chin? The mind could be playing tricks on me, though!

Rios vs Abril might be the worst for me, gave Rios 1 or maybe 2 rounds I think. Judges needed shooting that night.

Chris, sorry to be pedantic but 21 seconds had elapsed between Bute going down and the bell ringing to finish the fight, there were timekeeper issues if my memory serves me right.

There was only that amount of time between Bute going down and the bell sounding because the bell isn't meant to sound while a count is taking place, Hammersmith. The timekeeper is meant to wait until the referee has completed any count before sounding the bell in the event of a fighter going down in the last few seconds of a round.

I don't dispute that Bute had the Gods on his side to some extent, but he was up in less than ten seconds - very warily, as I've already admitted above - and wouldn't have had to take another punch even if the referee hadn't been slow in picking up the count. There was no time left in the fight - the very second the referee waved them back in, the bell would have sounded, regardless of whether that was ten seconds or twenty-one seconds after Bute hit the deck.

As I said though, there are plenty of people who would have waved the fight off before then - but that's a judgement call.

I'm aware of that Chris, more pointing out the timescale that Bute was given to recover, he was in no fit condition to continue and the ref seemed hell bent on ensuring he heard the final bell.

Agree that the referee gave him benefit of the doubt by not stopping the contest when Bute was getting ragdolled and staggered in round twelve, but I think the count and recovery time after the knockdown are moot points, personally Hammy.

As soon as the referee decided that he was going to administer the count, Bute getting up inside ten seconds meant that essentially he couldn't lose the fight - and he got up. He had nothing to recover for as another punch couldn't have been thrown even if the ref had got straight down to business with the count.

He would have always heard the final bell regardless - the caveat being that the referee could still have decided that Andrade had rendered him unable to continue with punches thrown in the twelfth round and waved it off after inspecting him once he'd got up, which would have been recorded as a TKO loss at (example) 3:10 of the final round. But then you'd probably have just as much controversy with people claiming that Bute had been robbed. There are referees who would have done that, I'm sure, but I don't think in this case you can automatically assume that this referee only decided against that because the fight was in Bute's backyard.

There'll probably never be any clear consensus on it, mind you. I take on board what you and Truss say, and I agree there's reason to be sceptical, but I don't think the evidence is clear enough to label it a proper stich up. Just my (long-winded, sorry!) take on it, fella.

Back to awful decisions, have to put a smile on milky's face and mention the Tiberi-Toney shocker. You know Toney got beat when even the man himself (who is only bested by Ray Robinson and Ezzard Charles in his own opinion) admits that he got beat, even if it did take until 2008 for him to finally confess!

There have been plenty of shockers in recent years - Paul Williams over Erislandy Lara springs to mind.
Chavez over Vera, Joel Casamayor over Jose Armando Santa Cruz, Tavoris Cloud over Gabriel Campillo and Brandon Rios over Richard Abril (throw in Bradley over Pacquiao).

Ottke v Reid ref truly was shocking. I can remember watching it with mates and we were all disgusted with what he was pulling Reid up for.

Didn't Joan Guzman benefit from a truly shocking set of cards also? Can't remember which fight.

I think it still is the worst pro decision of all time, yes. I'd offer Pintor-Zarate as a dishonourable runner-up, but Zarate should "only" have been given that decision by about five rounds, as opposed to the ten point victory that Pea deserved against Ramirez.

Neither decision stinks as much as Jones' amateur loss to the Korean, however. At least Kim had the decency to appear embarrassed when the verdict was announced.

Few other stinkers have sprung to mind: Louis-Walcott, Fenech-Nelson I, Whitaker-Chavez and Sturm-De La Hoya. The first of those might make my bronze medal in the hall of shame but none of them can quite match Ramirez-Whitaker I for sheer daylight robbery.

Few others: Leonard vs Hearns 2, Foreman over Axel Schulz, Briggs over Foreman, Holyfield vs Lewis 1.

The Guzman decision was over Ali Funeka.

Might be opening up myself for a bit of a kicking from the captain and milky here, two big-time Conteh fans....But his 'draw' against Jesse Burnett was a horrible decision for me. I thought Burnett won it by a wide margin even without the knockdowns, but with them? Not even remotely close or competitive, really.

But!!! I thought Conteh beat Parlov in Belgrade when he tried to reclaim the WBC belt by a good three rounds, even taking in to account the point deductions. That was a bad'un worthy of being mentioned here, along with the likes of Foreman-Schulz.

Also, Chisora against Helenius.

I'm a paragon of objectivity Chris. Conteh Burnett was a shocker, conteh looked shot in that fight... Maybe he just got caught cold and never recovered, or maybe he'd been on the sauce, as the first saad fight suggested he still had something left.

He was jobbed against parlov.

Another much forgotten shocker was Minter getting shafted against hamsho.

Anyone mentioned burns Beltran?

Aye, Burns-Beltran was a shaky one to put it mildly. Thought Beltran had it by a good three rounds at least. Another recent(ish) one was Forrest-Quartey. Again, I thought Quartey by about three or four points should have been the going rate.

I thought Victor Cordoba definitely beat Nunn in that first fight, too (in fairness to Nunn, he was slipping by that stage and did at least put it to bed in a rematch). I thought Cordoba got it by a similar margin to the above fights, about four rounds, but I concede it could have been a bit closer. No way Nunn deserved the win, though.

I think Casamayor over Santa Cruz was just as bad as Whitaker Ramirez - possibly worse. Takes the cake for me (for fights since). AP had it 117-109. Dan Rafael scores it 119-108.

Yeh for me, Lara Williams and Casamayor Santa Cruz probably the worst

Urango v Ben Rabah was pretty bad

Martinez cintron... Where the joke about having to knock the guy out to get a draw became reality. Notwithstanding the knockout in the middle of the fight martinez still win on points.

ko magazine had Haugen 145-140 over Paz...........When he lost his title.....I had it closer 144-141 but still naughty....

Reggie Johnson's first fight against Castro might be worth a shout here. I had Reggie winning it 116-112 even though he looked as if he was boxing within himself. But the crowd was seriously hostile and Castro's corner were allowed to get away with climbing the ring apron to bellow instructions at their man while rounds were still in progress, so not really surprising that Castro got the nod.

In preparation for having Reggie on the podcast last year I dug out his fight against John David Jackson, too. Not as clear-cut as the first Castro fight but I still thought that Johnson was hard done by. One of Reggie's four "political losses" as he likes to put it.

Gorres-Darchinyan and Inkin-Zunega in more recent times were dodgy as well, albeit not in the Ramirez-Whitaker category. Glazkov's 'draw' against Malik Scott last year was terrible as well. Scott effectively won the fight clearly with one arm!

Froch v Groves I appeared to be heading towards a shocker of a decision before the stoppage. Not in the league of Whitaker v Ramirez but would have caused a fair amount of stink in this country.

Have to agree.............I had Groves up by three and I was being kind to Froch in the close rounds..

Domestically, some of us still recall Jimmy Vincent being stiffed in the David Barnes fight and the Vanzie/Earl abortion on the undercard (the rematch wasn't much f*cking better)

I remember that fight with Vincent........Strange looking fellow against the handsome up and comer....

I had it for Vincent but I think he lost a rematch didn't he ?? Not that it's relevant.

To be honest, I still think the third Marquez-Pacquiao fight was a really bad one. I've argued before that the first two fights, commonly cited as outright 'robberies', weren't if you look at them objectively and individually, but I'd feel comfortable saying that Marquez was ripped off in the third bout. I know there were a few who felt that Pacquiao was decent value for a draw or a very, very narrow win, but even when I've rewatched it with their comments in mind and trying to see where Pacquiao could get the benefit of the doubt, I still have Marquez running out the winner by at least three rounds.

At least Marquez got some revenge a year later, though.

What do you mean objectively ??

The majority of observers thought JMM got stuffed in the first fight...

Manny won two rounds max and then got a lesson...

Me I thought the second and third were close...Though I still had JMM winning.

Just going back to what I was talking about on the other thread yesterday really, Truss. It's calmed down a bit now but go back three years and there was a tendency for people to go to extremes (be it good or bad) with Manny and Floyd, as the whole 'who is pound for pound number one, will they won't they fight, who will win?' saga was still dominating the sport and forums at the time.

As such, there was a pretty loud contingent who used to talk as if the first two fights against Marquez were blatant stitch ups when in reality neither result (a draw and then a split decision to Manny) was a travesty, more just contentious.

I had Marquez winning the first one by a couple and the draw was definitely kinder to Pacquiao than it was to him, but it was close enough on the ten point must system (can't just ignore the fact that Pacquiao built up a five point lead in the first two rounds, even if he was clearly outboxed for the majority of the bout) to just about make a draw an ok result - had Pacquiao still got the win outright, I'd have been a lot more upset about it.

The second one was just one of those fights that could have gone either way. I've scored it 114-113 to Marquez as well as 114-113 to Pacquiao when I've re-watched it, for instance. Given that it was a flip of a coin kind of thing, and it fell nicely for Manny a second time in a row, there was a tendency for people to make out it was a worse decision than it actually was. If you looked at it as a one-off fight, Manny getting the nod was fine.

But even though I've defended Pacquiao for the first two fights plenty of times, I just couldn't see the third bout as being anything other than a clear Marquez win. For me that's the only fight in the series which has the stink of injustice about it, but some would have you believe that Marquez was blatantly ripped off threee times over before finally getting his revenge.

The third was the worst robbery of that year, HBO were more concerned with making a Mayweather still look attractive so were incredibly biased which I believe swayed opinions.

I'm not really sure the third was a Robbery. Ringside, less than half the media present gave it Márquez. Which shows how different it obviously looked live. Scorecards were clearly too wide. But I don't bite this theory of Márquez being robbed. He lost a close fight. Thought he won the second though...

I try to steer clear of accusing networks, commentators etc of having an agenda, Hammersmith, because I guess it can sometimes make you look like you're throwing a hissy fit over people seeing things differently to you - but I agree with you that HBO were verging on the outrageous that night. Appreciate that anyone could just turn round to me (or the other people who thought that Marquez won it with a bit to spare) and say, "What do you know about boxing compared to Harold Lederman? He's been doing this for a living for forty years and is a well-paid expert in his trade!" or whatever, but honestly, 116-112 to Pacquiao? Come on now, Harold. That was the fight more than any other which really convinced me that any card Lederman comes up with these days should be taken with a pinch of salt.

A lot of other people have said the same, but at that stage it was as if HBO had just decided before any Pacquiao or Mayweather fight that they were automatically going to win in dominant style and that it was going to be another masterclass. It was almost like they'd forgotten there was another guy in the ring with them. I don't think anyone disputes that Mayweather a few months later ran out a solid 8-4 in rounds kind of winner against Cotto, but listening to HBO on the night you'd think it was a sparring session for Mayweather. Everyone else aside from those guys saw Cotto giving Mayweather a good fight and piercing his defence more regularly than just about anyone else had in years.

As a series I think Pac-Marquez is just horrible.

Marquez won at least another 2 of their encounters.

88Chris05 wrote:I try to steer clear of accusing networks, commentators etc of having an agenda, Hammersmith, because I guess it can sometimes make you look like you're throwing a hissy fit over people seeing things differently to you - but I agree with you that HBO were verging on the outrageous that night. Appreciate that anyone could just turn round to me (or the other people who thought that Marquez won it with a bit to spare) and say, "What do you know about boxing compared to Harold Lederman? He's been doing this for a living for forty years and is a well-paid expert in his trade!" or whatever, but honestly, 116-112 to Pacquiao? Come on now, Harold. That was the fight more than any other which really convinced me that any card Lederman comes up with these days should be taken with a pinch of salt.

A lot of other people have said the same, but at that stage it was as if HBO had just decided before any Pacquiao or Mayweather fight that they were automatically going to win in dominant style and that it was going to be another masterclass. It was almost like they'd forgotten there was another guy in the ring with them. I don't think anyone disputes that Mayweather a few months later ran out a solid 8-4 in rounds kind of winner against Cotto, but listening to HBO on the night you'd think it was a sparring session for Mayweather. Everyone else aside from those guys saw Cotto giving Mayweather a good fight and piercing his defence more regularly than just about anyone else had in years.

I can't remember what commentary team I was listening to for the Mayweather vs Cotto fight but it was some of the worst stuff in years, at one stage Cotto got through with a great punch and all one of the guys would do was credit how well Mayweather could take a shot and said he clearly won the round.