Tweet
So I just got done watching the supposedly "highly controversial" match between Muhammad Rachman and ****sawan Porpramook and I feel really suprised because from everything I had read, this was supposed to have been one of the most controversial fights of last year with f*ghtnews calling it a robbery and Rachman filing a protest with the WBA, and I found it to be anything but controversial. I had the Thai winning 117-112 which means I only gave Rachman 3 rounds with 1 even and the rest to "The Tank". Rachman landed the harder punches but he was just so inactive compared to his opponent that I found it very hard to give him rounds. Calling this fight a robbery is like saying Oscar De La Hoya was robbed against Floyd Mayweather. There's just no logical argument that can be made because the other guy landed so many more punches. I thought the judges were generous to Rachman. He lost clearly. It really should have been a unanimous decision. I don't see how you could score it a draw.
It just goes to show you that appearences can be deceiving and you really need to see things for yourself rather than taking other peoples view as being the truth. There's been a lot of other fights like that one that I heard were controversial that weren't in my eyes. For example with Sven Ottke you see a lot of people claiming that this guy got several decisions that he didn't deserve but i've seen several of them (Charles Brewer 1, Glen Johnson, Rudy Markussen, Byron Mitchell, Mads Larsen among others) and I thought he deserved to win all of those fights although some were close. From what I have seen there was only one fight in his career that you can truly call a robbery which was his victory over Robin Reid. The idea that his career is full of robberies is a myth.
Aside from that I can't think of that many so I would be interested to know some more that you guys know from personal experience. I guess there is a couple with Felix Sturm. A lot of people called his win over Macklin a robbery and while I can see an argument for having Macklin narrowly winning, to say that he won clearly and/or that he dominated the fight is just wrong and out of touch with reality in my eyes. The Martin Murray fight really should have been a clear win for Sturm and wasn't close at all in my opinion yet you see people claiming it was controversial and that he should have won too. I think a lot of times people just resent success and so when a guy has been champion for a long time (like Sturm) and then has a close fight they exaggerate things in a desperate attempt to bring them down to their favourite fighter's levels. We saw the same thing with Mayweather-Cotto. It's gotten to such a point with Floyd, where he's so dominant that all it takes is for a guy to back him up against the ropes a few times and put some damage on him for people to claim that it should have been a draw or that he should have lost when in reality he dominated the fight.
Which ones stick out in your mind? Feedback on this is very much appreciated.
It just goes to show you that appearences can be deceiving and you really need to see things for yourself rather than taking other peoples view as being the truth. There's been a lot of other fights like that one that I heard were controversial that weren't in my eyes. For example with Sven Ottke you see a lot of people claiming that this guy got several decisions that he didn't deserve but i've seen several of them (Charles Brewer 1, Glen Johnson, Rudy Markussen, Byron Mitchell, Mads Larsen among others) and I thought he deserved to win all of those fights although some were close. From what I have seen there was only one fight in his career that you can truly call a robbery which was his victory over Robin Reid. The idea that his career is full of robberies is a myth.
Aside from that I can't think of that many so I would be interested to know some more that you guys know from personal experience. I guess there is a couple with Felix Sturm. A lot of people called his win over Macklin a robbery and while I can see an argument for having Macklin narrowly winning, to say that he won clearly and/or that he dominated the fight is just wrong and out of touch with reality in my eyes. The Martin Murray fight really should have been a clear win for Sturm and wasn't close at all in my opinion yet you see people claiming it was controversial and that he should have won too. I think a lot of times people just resent success and so when a guy has been champion for a long time (like Sturm) and then has a close fight they exaggerate things in a desperate attempt to bring them down to their favourite fighter's levels. We saw the same thing with Mayweather-Cotto. It's gotten to such a point with Floyd, where he's so dominant that all it takes is for a guy to back him up against the ropes a few times and put some damage on him for people to claim that it should have been a draw or that he should have lost when in reality he dominated the fight.
Which ones stick out in your mind? Feedback on this is very much appreciated.
.
Comment