Controversial decisions revisited, volume one. De la Hoya-Whitaker, 1997

Ayup everyone, hope the first half of the working week hasn’t taken too great a toll on you all.

There have been innumerable controversial decisions in boxing history which, even years (or decades) after, are still hotly disputed and debated amongst fight fans. And as this is just the place for dispute and debate, I thought it would be a good idea to pick out a few from history and offer my own take on them, as well as getting the views of your good selves.

There are a few that I’ll be throwing up over the coming weeks, but to start with I’ve decided to look at Oscar De la Hoya’s 1997 clash with the great Pernell Whitaker for the WBC Welterweight crown. I find it’s an interesting case to start with, given Whitaker’s previous history of shocking decisions against him, certain comments made by De la Hoya in the build up to the fight and, as these kinds of debates often do, it brings up the difficult subject of how exactly we should score a fight.

First off, let’s get the opinion of the judges that night out of the way. De la Hoya scored a unanimous decision, by scores of 115-111, 116-110 and 116-110, with the scores causing uproar in some quarters. Even those who believed that De la Hoya had won were mystified at how far ahead the judges had him, and I’m sure anyone who has seen the fight and thinks that Oscar won would agree that margins of four, six and six points respectively were ridiculous.

However, the general feeling amongst journalists and most ringside spectators was that Whitaker had done enough to keep hold of his title. Now, here is the first potentially crucial factor in the distorted view that some have of this fight; Whitaker had been on the end of two particularly shocking verdicts in world title fights before. In 1989, he had dominated Jose Luis Ramirez in a WBC Lightweight title bout, only to be on the losing side of an absolutely disgraceful split decision (I had it 118-112 to Whitaker, and that was being extremely generous to his Mexican opponent). In 1993, in defence of his Welterweight title, Whitaker should have become the first man to record a win over the legendary Julio Cesar Chavez, giving him a lesson in counter-punching and defence before the judges declared a highly controversial draw. Again, I believe Whitaker was harshly treated, having scored in 116-112 in his favour, and that was even allowing for him gifting the last round to Chavez.

And that, for me, is the crux (or one of the cruxes) of the argument – Whitaker had a reputation which proceeded him, and I believe it plays a part in the way in which people look back on his bout with De la Hoya. Because personally, I think ‘Sweet Pea’ can have no complaints – I scored the bout a draw, and that was allowing for the fact that Whitaker had a very dubious 10-8 round in the ninth, when he scored a debatable knock down. Given what happened with Ramirez and Chavez, I think there is a tendency to look back at a close Whitaker fight against a modern great – but someone who is clearly a level or two below him, historically speaking – and assume that he was “robbed” once the decision doesn’t go his way.

Making an opponent miss and look amateurish (which he did to De la Hoya, on a few occasions in fairness) was all part of Whitaker’s arsenal, but I think he badly overdid it in this fight. In retrospect, people are quick to point out that while De la Hoya was forcing the pace, many of his punches didn’t land. But again, the same can be said of Whitaker. Against Ramirez and Chavez, Whitaker mixed defence and attack beautifully, but against De la Hoya he was far, far too negative for my liking, and infuriating, too – he spent so much time clowning and playing to the crowd, it was unreal. The sixth, seventh and eighth rounds in particular were very good ones for De la Hoya, but Whitaker contributed to his own downfall.

But still, I expect that some will maintain that Whitaker was on the wrong end of a poor decision, and here is the second point of contention. Whitaker, for all his talents, was never a massive ticket seller. De la Hoya, the golden boy of American boxing at the time, certainly was. In the days leading up to the fight, De la Hoya was asked if his marketable personality and the revenue his name generates could sway judges in to treating him favourably. De la Hoya answered “I think so. Unfortunately, that’s boxing. It’s all politics, it’s all about money. What the WBC sees is that I’m a young fighter. If I win the title, I obviously make more money than Whitaker or anyone else.”

So for those of you (and I’m sure there will be a few) who think that Whitaker deserved the nod, does the above quote by De la Hoya ring true? Was Whitaker once again a victim of his own back foot style?

In summary, my take is that the fight was a draw and, if anything, De la Hoya may have been the marginally better man on the night. Whitaker certainly wasn’t the same fighter who’d looked imperious against Chavez, Vasquez and Nelson in the years beforehand, and looking back I believe that people have a distorted view of this fight, with Whitaker’s past troubles with judges tricking a few in to believing that he was harshly treated in this fight. I agree that the margins of De la Hoya’s win on the cards were ridiculous and almost beyond comprehension, but can Whitaker really have any complaints that the decision went against him? For me, he can’t.

Would be great to get your take on matters, lads. If there’s a decent response I’ll fish out a few more controversial ones for us to have a look at.

Cheers, fellas.

It's a shame this article has been overlooked so far Chris, I hope it doesn't put you off creating another great series!

I haven't watched the fight in quite some time so I'll have to revisit it to give a fully formed opinion, but I think you make an excellent point. Though defence is a part of scoring any round, effective aggression and offence are as well, and Whittaker probably didn't quite do enough of it over the the course of the whole fight.

Much like Mayweather today, Sweet Pea's defensive style wasn't as broadly popular as a JCC or a De La Hoya, and with money talking it's no surprise that the judges could be swayed by politics to give the next big crossover star the decision. The quote from De La Hoya himself says it all really, we don't like it much but it's something we see regularly, prospects and money spinners being given the edge.

The interesting thing about this is de la Hoya, who was frequently embroiled in fights that ended in controversial decisions, whether in his favour or not. One thinks of the two Mosley fights, Quartey, Trinidad, Mayweather and Sturm and wonders what it was in his style of fighting that polarised judges' opinions so starkly. And then there was Whitaker, as you say. I wouldn't have been fussed if either boxer had won by a round, or indeed if it had been scored a draw, as Chris had it. The scoring seemed off-base to me, but the actual result wasn't a robbery in the Whitaker-Ramirez sense of the word.

Slash, captain, thanks for your contributions. Nope, no need to worry about that - been ignored enough on here to get used to it by now!

To be honest, I was expecting most replies to be backing Whitaker whole-heartedly, so it's a slight relief that the jist seems to be that while it could have gone either way, the theory of Whitaker being 'robbed' again has been overblown a little bit.

I think of Whittaker as a kind of cult favourite amongst boxing fans. Still not well known amongst casual fans who don't find his style endearing, he's a big favourite amongst hardcore fans who appreciated his pure technical skill and defensive nous.

I think that has contributed towards the De La Hoya fight being seen as a robbery, die hards wanted to further add to Sweet Peas legacy. That's as a kind of add on to your point about the more obvious robberies in the Ramirez and JCC fights, it's easier to say he was robbed blind again.

*Whitaker.

I think De La Hoya is a strange strange case, he both benefitted and lost out due to his high profile, he scored a win over Sturm he really shouldn't have and somehow had one judge score him the Mayweather fight but then you have the Trinidad and Mosley fights where the judges seemed to over compensate with their scoring.

I had DelaHoya winning but not by that margin...Certainly robbed as was Taylor against Julio though.......As with a lot of Whittaker fights if the opponent didn't make the fight..there wouldn't have been one..So I was happy for Oscar tot ake the close rounds...

Glad Oscar beat Whittaker because it hastened his retirement and meant we didn't have to witness him stink out many more halls....

Trinidad did him quite easy soon after If I remember..

great fighter but not one that I'd pay to watch..

Nice article Chris;if the next one in this series is Tito/De La Hoya, I'll certainly contribute .....

Let's hope it isn't then....

You are simply jealous because I can write sentences longer than eight words,and with a full stop.

I wouldn't have had a comma followed with an...and...

Though!!

Cunning liguist

I aim to please...

Man, you do okay seeing as your previous president's first language wasn't even language.