Name some bad decisions or robbiries that just get overrated and weren't as bad as people make them out to be?

This one could go on and on. People always call fights "robberies" when they're really close.

Mosley-De La Hoya 2. PED use aside. DLH boxed well in the early going, Mosley got the better of it in the late rounds. There were many close rounds. Oscar's win over Whitaker too. That was a pain in the ass to score. A very close fight. People call Leonard-Hagler a bad decision, but that was a close fight that could've gone either way. Mayweather-Castillo 1 is greatly exaggerated. Castillo did very little in the beginning and gave away too many rounds.

Then of course you have people going "look at the Compubox", as if that amazingly accurate system means much.

Both Marquez-Pacquiao fights. I think that Marquez won both, but the way people ***** about them, you'd think he didn't touch the canvas three times in the first fight and that he just straight annihilated him in the second.

Both Marquez-Pacquiao fights. Knockdowns count people.

Froch-Dirrell. I thought Froch did nothing and lost the fight but Dirrell lost it himself.

De La Hoya-Trinidad. Bottom line is Trinidad kept fighting and Oscar decided to give away the end of the fight.

some peope still call both hopkins-taylor fights robberies

they were super close fights.hopkins had been champion so long and he fought like he was owed something due to this

he and the majority of his fans are very sore losers

Hagler vs Leonard
Whitaker vs DLH
Watson vs Eubank 1
Spoon vs Holmes
Diaz vs Malignaggi

I watched Young vs Ali and Young vs Norton,whilst i thought Young won both i felt he was more convincing beating Ali then he was Norton, only its generally more accepted that he beat Norton but people are reluctant to concede that he beat Ali to.

Frankie Randall vs JCC II, stopped by a cut Chavez won in a fight he should had lost and doesn't give him the rubber match till years later in Mexico

Clottey vs Cotto, Clottey just stopped punching in the end of the fight that he was winning. Knockdown was the deciding factor

some peope still call both hopkins-taylor fights robberies

they were super close fights.hopkins had been champion so long and he fought like he was owed something due to this

he and the majority of his fans are very sore losers

I do agree with that, speed gives Hopkins a lot of problems but most of those fights he was waiting while Taylor was doing the fight

I do agree with that, speed gives Hopkins a lot of problems but most of those fights he was waiting while Taylor was doing the fight

they were close fights and i wouldnt have no objection to anybody scoring it for hopkins
you are right though,speed beats hopkins,he is better at beating one-dimensional fighters

they were close fights and i wouldnt have no objection to anybody scoring it for hopkins
you are right though,speed beats hopkins,he is better at beating one-dimensional fighters

I respectfully disagree with that tbh, to me Hopkins gets labeled that in the latter part of his career because (a) he lost to Roy who just happens to be one of, if not the quickest fighter of all time at 160 (b)because when your old as Hopkins is, its obvious your reflexes went a long time ago and that your just relying on timing to get by at this point (c) because Hopkins is old and his reflexes went a long time ago his timing alone is not enough to beat the quicker fighters with! good skills (Taylor) but he can still beat the one dimensional plodders like Pavlik, therefore people look at the Taylor fight and the Jones fight and the wins over one dimensional fighters like Pavlik and assume he could never! handle speed and thats why he lost to Roy, Taylor and beat Pavlik etc.

Marco Antonio Barrera vs Erik Morales I
Marco Antonio Barrera vs Erik Morales II
Ray Leonard vs Marvin Hagler

Both Marquez-Pacquiao fights. Knockdowns count people.

Froch-Dirrell. I thought Froch did nothing and lost the fight but Dirrell lost it himself.

De La Hoya-Trinidad. Bottom line is Trinidad kept fighting and Oscar decided to give away the end of the fight.

I strongly disagree with the ones in bold.

Many people use the excuse that Dirrell "lost it himself".. but what did he really do? He made Froch miss, most of the night, and landed more effective punches. I just think it's an excuse that was started by Froch fans and others actually bought into it.

As for DLH-Trinidad, that wasn't close, at all in my opinion. DLH gave away the final rounds, but I thought he gave Trinidad a boxing lesson in the rest of the fight. I don't know how anyone could've given the fight to Trinidad.

I am a fan of both Hearns and SRL but i always thought they made the second fight as this huge highway robbery. I had SRL winning by a point. There were possibly two rounds both 5 and 12 that Tommy was in queer street and could have been scored 10-8. I know that even SRL now says he probably lost the fight but I saw many close Rds that could have gotten either way. The fact that it ended in a draw perhaps was justice for this close fight that many thought Hearns was robbed. Also if it went 15 RDS like the first fight i see SRL stopping the Motor City Cobra again.

I strongly disagree with the ones in bold.

Many people use the excuse that Dirrell "lost it himself".. but what did he really do? He made Froch miss, most of the night, and landed more effective punches. I just think it's an excuse that was started by Froch fans and others actually bought into it.

As for DLH-Trinidad, that wasn't close, at all in my opinion. DLH gave away the final rounds, but I thought he gave Trinidad a boxing lesson in the rest of the fight. I don't know how anyone could've given the fight to Trinidad.

Well to be fair the DLH/Tito fight was a carbon copy of DLH/Quartey in that regard no? but people still make out DLH pulled the fight out in a matter of 2 rounds :sad:

Well to be fair the DLH/Tito fight was a carbon copy of DLH/Quartey in that regard no? but people still make out DLH pulled the fight out in a matter of 2 rounds :sad:

I don't see how it was a carbon copy. Quartey was landing cleaner punches more frequently on DLH than Trinidad did.

I don't see how it was a carbon copy. Quartey was landing cleaner punches more frequently on DLH than Trinidad did.

I agree but im referring to how Quartey shoulda won the fight and dominated majority of it yet some fans like to think DLH pulled it around in the last 3 rounds Lol

Vargas-Wright.

People act like Winky wasrobbed but in reality the fight could have went either way.

I agree but im referring to how Quartey shoulda won the fight and dominated majority of it yet some fans like to think DLH pulled it around in the last 3 rounds Lol

If you thought DLH deserved to lose the fight, that's fine. But I don't see why this fight should excuse the DLH-Trinidad fight. They were fought differently.

I respectfully disagree with that tbh, to me Hopkins gets labeled that in the latter part of his career because (a) he lost to Roy who just happens to be one of, if not the quickest fighter of all time at 160 (b)because when your old as Hopkins is, its obvious your reflexes went a long time ago and that your just relying on timing to get by at this point (c) because Hopkins is old and his reflexes went a long time ago his timing alone is not enough to beat the quicker fighters with! good skills (Taylor) but he can still beat the one dimensional plodders like Pavlik, therefore people look at the Taylor fight and the Jones fight and the wins over one dimensional fighters like Pavlik and assume he could never! handle speed and thats why he lost to Roy, Taylor and beat Pavlik etc.

i see your point DK

i think its fair to say that only speed fighters have a chance of beating hopkins though,because if his opponent lets him get into a rhythm and cant upset it,then they are in for a long frustrating night

i know thats veering off subject slightly,justthought id throw it out there

Both Marquez-Pacquiao fights. Knockdowns count people.

Froch-Dirrell. I thought Froch did nothing and lost the fight but Dirrell lost it himself.

De La Hoya-Trinidad. Bottom line is Trinidad kept fighting and Oscar decided to give away the end of the fight.

It can be looked at this way, but Oscar still controlled the fight, landed more punches and was the better ring general throughout. I believe I had him winning 8 rounds, but I could understand an argument for 7. Without a KD I just don't see how Tito deserved that decision. NO WAY Tito won 7 rounds. Jmo.

[/B]

It can be looked at this way, but Oscar still controlled the fight, landed more punches and was the better ring general throughout. I believe I had him winning 8 rounds, but I could understand an argument for 7. Without a KD I just don't see how Tito deserved that decision. NO WAY Tito won 7 rounds. Jmo.

I agree, I thought De La Hoya won as well but you cannot count on judging in professional boxing and when you deliberately give away the last 4 rounds like Oscar did the judges like to punish you.

I strongly disagree with the ones in bold.

Many people use the excuse that Dirrell "lost it himself".. but what did he really do? He made Froch miss, most of the night, and landed more effective punches. I just think it's an excuse that was started by Froch fans and others actually bought into it.

As for DLH-Trinidad, that wasn't close, at all in my opinion. DLH gave away the final rounds, but I thought he gave Trinidad a boxing lesson in the rest of the fight. I don't know how anyone could've given the fight to Trinidad.

I thought Dirrell won as well but it isn't the blatant robbery many make it out to be. The first 5 or 6 rounds saw both fighters very tentative to do anything, and in the champ's hometown they will give those rounds to the champ if they can. Definite hometown decision, a little overrated as a blatant robbery.

Every close Hopkins fight. A lot of people claim every close fight Bernard has ever been in that didn't go his way is a robbery, and they weren't they were all close fights that either could win.

I agree, I thought De La Hoya won as well but you cannot count on judging in professional boxing and when you deliberately give away the last 4 rounds like Oscar did the judges like to punish you.

Thats a fair point. But how much can you punish a fighter who swept at least 6 of the first 8 rounds and with no knockdowns? I haven't scored it in awhile, but I've watched it plenty of times and just can't find a way to give Tito that fight. That said, watching a fight live and watching it on tv are two different things.

I thought Dirrell won as well but it isn't the blatant robbery many make it out to be. The first 5 or 6 rounds saw both fighters very tentative to do anything, and in the champ's hometown they will give those rounds to the champ if they can. Definite hometown decision, a little overrated as a blatant robbery.

it depends on what you like really.froch did show aggression but if the fight was scored on clean punching alone dirrell would have won by a landslide,and im sure if the fight was staged in a neutral country the scorecards would have reflected that

i have yet to speak to a froch fan who can name 6 clear rounds that he won and that annoys me.all they seem to say is 'you have to take the belt from the champ in a convincing way' 'dirrell was fighting like a *****' etc etc

i understand what they are trying to say,but they are acting like dirrell should have come over here and stood toe-to-toe with a brawler if he wanted the belt,when in fact the best strategy was to box and move like he did

Joe frazier vs Oscar bonavena and Roberto Duran vs Iran barkley.


Oh wait! My mistake.


This topic isn't about an overrated fighter who was declared the winner in a bad decision.




My apologies.

You thought that Barkley won that fight? More over, you thought Duran was overrated? Are you crazy?

Joe frazier vs Oscar bonavena and Roberto Duran vs Iran barkley.


Oh wait! My mistake.


This topic isn't about an overrated fighter who was declared the winner in a bad decision.




My apologies.


http://www.ecoautoninja.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/admiralackbar.jpg

Yes,and so did the one judge who actually scored the fight correctly.


fights are scored round by round,not the last quarter.barkley dominated the vast majority of the fight except the last three and the first rounds.barkley was the far more consistent fighter throughout,and contrary to the claims of the Duran apologists,Duran most certainly didn't spend the entire night slipping everything barkley threw.




And yes,Roberto "I never lost a fight" Duran is incredibly overrated.

Thats a fair point. But how much can you punish a fighter who swept at least 6 of the first 8 rounds and with no knockdowns? I haven't scored it in awhile, but I've watched it plenty of times and just can't find a way to give Tito that fight. That said, watching a fight live and watching it on tv are two different things.

Oscar ran for 4 rounds, so there's four you can give Tito. Wasn't surprising to me as someone who thought Oscar definitely won that judges could find 3 of the other 8 to give Tito.

Again, not saying Tito won, but it's not as blatant a robbery as say, Whitaker-Chavez which was as blatant a robbery as there can be.