Fights That You Heard Were Robberies But Found Out They Weren't

[#1Assassin]

Originally Posted by Mastrangelo

Nah dear Assasin, what's definitely more likely is that as still active fighter not eager to get in the ring with Hagler again will not say, oh he beat me.
When he's retired he doesn't care that much anymore, so he may say he felt he lost the fight. And he might've felt that, not a big deal.

i dont see what him wanting or not wanting to keep fighting has to do with anything. the bottom line is no fighter would say he lost if he didnt think he did, atleast not without implying in some way that he thought he won. ray said point blank he lost the fight several times.

it is a big deal. a fighter is the last person to admit he lost. its ridiculous how even he can admit he lost yet some of his fans refuse to do the same.

that fight is one of my favourite fights in history, ive seen it 15-20 times. at times scoring every close round to leonard just to see how it wound up. there are 5 rounds you could give him realisticly, MAYBE 6. that still has hearns winning by 2 points and thats giving ray every competetive round, hearns won that fight no doubt about it.

[House of Stone]

Originally Posted by Barnburner

Number 3 was a robbery.

i had pac by close decision in the first two and marquez by close decision in the 3rd but I don't think it was a robbery - last night was a robbery

[Barnburner]

Originally Posted by House of Stone

i had pac by close decision in the first two and marquez by close decision in the 3rd but I don't think it was a robbery - last night was a robbery

Pacquiao vs Marquez 3 is the closest I've come to stopping watching boxing altogether, I was very close to calling it a day.

[Mastrangelo]

Originally Posted by #1Assassin

i dont see what him wanting or not wanting to keep fighting has to do with anything. the bottom line is no fighter would say he lost if he didnt think he did, atleast not without implying in some way that he thought he won. ray said point blank he lost the fight several times.

it is a big deal. a fighter is the last person to admit he lost. its ridiculous how even he can admit he lost yet some of his fans refuse to do the same.

that fight is one of my favourite fights in history, ive seen it 15-20 times. at times scoring every close round to leonard just to see how it wound up. there are 5 rounds you could give him realisticly, MAYBE 6. that still has hearns winning by 2 points and thats giving ray every competetive round, hearns won that fight no doubt about it.

What you need to understand is boxing is not soccer, or basketball when you know that guy who scored more points/goals will be the winner. A lot of judges, just like a lot of people give fighters more credit for certain things - aggression, ring generalship, volume of punches etc.
It's not hard for me to imagine a fight in which both fighters thought they lost! Because just like judges have different way of looking at things, so the fighters may.
I don't have problems with scoring it for Hearns, but it wasn't clear at all. And to not speak out of my ass, here is my rounds by round scorecard:
Ray Leonard - Thomas Hearns II
Round 1:10:9
Round 2:10:9
Round 3:8:10
Round 4:10:9
Round 5:10:9
Round 6:9:10
Round 7:10:9
Round 8:9:10
Round 9:10:9
Round10:10:9
Round11:8:10
Round12:10:9
Final Result:114:112 Leonard Officially: 113:112,112:112,112:113

[Anthony342]

Well I do, see a robbery with De La Hoya/Trinidad. And yeah, Leonard/Hearns 2 was close, but I give Hearns the nod. Even Leonard himself has said he thought Hearns won the second fight. And yeah, I agree Leonard/Hagler was not a robbery. Must be called that by Hagler fanatics or fans who focused more on Hagler's harder punches, but Leonard landed some hard ones himself and a lot more of them and he outworked Hagler and used his movement to avoid a good amount of Hagler's shots. Bottom line, Leonard won that fight.

[SBleeder]

I didn't originally shell out $55 for last night's fight. When I read about the result, I forked over the money (still $55 on Comcast) for the replay.

I had Pacquiao winning... but can't call Bradley's win a true "robbery".

[SBleeder]

I didn't originally shell out $55 for last night's fight. When I read about the result, I forked over the money (still $55 on Comcast) for the replay.

I had Pacquiao winning... but can't call Bradley's win a true "robbery".

[JK1700]

Originally Posted by Mastrangelo

Maybe not crowd, but some judges apparently did . It's naive to think that only reason for hometown guys to get a lot of questionable decision is influence of the crowd. And do I need to remind you of Germans reputation in that case?


His first with Brewer could've gone either way. I scored it for Charles. His fight with Glen Johnson was the same thing, I also scored it for Glen. If those fights took place somewhere else, where judges would be free of any infuences, he would have very little chance for getting decision in both of those fights(especially the first one), as most judges will go with the aggressor. Ottke always knew that judges are on his side, so he didn't have to worry about winning rounds big, he knew if he'll keep it close enough, he's the one who will most likely get the benefit of a doubt. That's a huge adventage when other guy have to go hard every round.
That scorecard against him when he fought Byron was crazy indeed though.


That definition is just wrong. It doesn't work like that, that's illogicall. If you say that fighter need to win 8 rounds to claim he was robbed, then it's like you allowed judges to robb fighter of 1 round in a fight. Numbers of rounds that you need to win a fight(in fight without knockdowns or point deductions) is 7, so if you won 7 rounds clearly, you're the winner, end of story.


Both those decision were perfectly legit, I scored Toney - McCallum fight for James by 1 point and Ayala beat Tapia clearly, it just that terrible Showtime team from 1990's and early 2000's couldn't see which punches were blocked by Ayala and tricked people into suppose Tapia victory. Those guys were ridiculous in Tyson - Ruddock and Ricardo Lopez - Rosendo Alvarez fights as well. People may ***** about Judging in boxing sometimes, but generally judges have much better sense of what's going on in that ring than 90% of fans and journalists.


Looking at your scorecards I know what your problem is, you're not giving fighters credit for body shots. That's why you had Floyd clearly above Castillo(I believe), you gave Cotto only 1 round against Mayweather and now you say Sturm beat Macklin. Body shot is just as much a landed punch as head shot, if it does more damage than shots to the head then you have to give fighter credit for that.
You can't win the fight fighting the way Sturm was in 7 out of 12 rounds on that fight. He let Macklin work on him for 2 and a half minutes and answering with couple jabs and slapping right hands. If you want to win round with couple punches against busy opponent, you need to hurt him and Macklin through most parts was just walking through Sturms punches.
I thought it was very easy fight to score, with 7 clear round to Macklin(1,2,3,7,8,9,11) and 5 clear rounds to Sturm (4,5,6,10,12).
But if you want to convince me any of those Macklins rounds could've gone to German, than tell me which one and I can watch it again.

I disagree about Ottke. He did get the benefit of the doubt in some fights but I can't buy the whole "All he had to do was keep it close because he knew he would get the decision" nonsense. And like I said before I really don't see the influences that your referring to. The crowds when he fought were always very quiet so I can't say that if he fought somewhere else he would have lost certain fights. The whole "70% of robberies happen in Germany" thing is a myth. You see just as many awful decisions in America if not more. The only fight that I see with him that was a true robbery was Robin Reid. The Brewer fight was very close but I really can't complain about it because Brewer never really stepped on the gas and won rounds big, while Ottke was outboxed in spots but outworked him when he needed to which allowed him to steal close rounds. It was a very similar thing with the Glen Johnson fight. I heard that was a robbery and it absolutley was not. Glen just didn't do enough to make that fight his.

I don't understand your theory or my "illogical theory" or whatever. What I meant was that sometimes you can have a close fight where you still think that one guy won absolutley clearly (even though it was close). I think two examples of this are De La Hoya-Trinidad and De La Hoya-Mosley 2. Both of those fights were close but I can't imagine giving Tito or Shane more than 5 rounds in either of them regardless of how hard I try. I don't call that a robbery because I think a robbery has to be a one sided fight which is 8 rounds to 4 or wider, but I can see people viewing those fights as clear victories for two guys who didn't get them.

I had the first McCallum-Toney fight a draw and the Ayala-Tapia fights both for Ayala so I agree with you to an extent. I wasn't calling those fights robberies, I was using them as an example because I think they were both close. Anyway, I do think that the second Toney-McCallum fight was a pure robbery. Two judges scored it 117-110 for Toney, I had it 116-111 for McCallum. I also think, honestly, that the Showtime commentary team from the 90's was at least 3 times better than any boxing commentary out there today. Today's commentary is just embrassing, they were really good and much less biased than todays people.

I'm not really interested in watching the Sturm-Macklin fight again, but to address your post - If you think that I don't give fighters enough credit for body shots then how do you explain the fact that I scored the Toney-McCallum rematch wide for McCallum, The Rachman-Porpramook wide fight for Porpramook and the Hagler-Leonard fight for Hagler? All of these were fights were the other guys landed the better head punches so if I was purely, or mainly scoring based on that then surely I would have had them winning, right? Well that just goes to show that it's not true. I just don't pay as much attention to it as some people (not neccesarily you) because I can see that an awful lot of them end up being blocked on the arms and gloves.

Sturm was inactive against Macklin but it was a fight of two halves and in my opinion, Macklin was even less active in the last 6 rounds than Sturm was in the first six rounds which costed him the fight after building an early lead. A ton of his punches were being blocked and it seemed like whenever Felix let go of any power punches, he was snapping the guy's head back. Like I said before, it's a debatable fight and I don't have a problem with someone saying Macklin should have won, but did he dominate the fight? Absolutley not. I didn't think that he won a single one of the last 6 rounds. I had it 7 rounds to 4 with 1 even. Was it a controversial decision? Yes, but you admitted it yourself. Sturm won 5 rounds clearly. I don't think any fight where one guy won 5 rounds clearly should be called a robbery. I don't know if you have seen it but Macklin's fight against Varon was much more of a controversial decision in my opinion, and he obnoxiously acted like he won it clearly so I didn't have any sympathy for him after the Sturm fight. The guy comes across as a hypocritical crybaby.

Originally Posted by Barnburner

I had it for Hagler 6-5-1.

I guess I catch the Hoya vs Mayweather robbery cries as I uploaded the full fight to Youtube and the comments section is a major disaster.

What is your youtube channel? (Just out of curiousity)

Originally Posted by SBleeder

I didn't originally shell out $55 for last night's fight. When I read about the result, I forked over the money (still $55 on Comcast) for the replay.

I had Pacquiao winning... but can't call Bradley's win a true "robbery".

I agree with this.

Originally Posted by House of Stone

i had pac by close decision in the first two and marquez by close decision in the 3rd but I don't think it was a robbery - last night was a robbery

And disagree with this.

[Barnburner]

http://www.youtube.com/user/TheTarta...r?feature=mhee

[Mastrangelo]

Originally Posted by JK1700

If you think that I don't give fighters enough credit for body shots then how do you explain the fact that I scored the Toney-McCallum rematch wide for McCallum, The Rachman-Porpramook wide fight for Porpramook and the Hagler-Leonard fight for Hagler? All of these were fights were the other guys landed the better head punches so if I was purely, or mainly scoring based on that then surely I would have had them winning, right? Well that just goes to show that it's not true. I just don't pay as much attention to it as some people (not neccesarily you) because I can see that an awful lot of them end up being blocked on the arms and gloves.

You have a point there.

Originally Posted by JK1700

If you think that I don't give fighters enough credit Sturm was inactive against Macklin but it was a fight of two halves and in my opinion, Macklin was even less active in the last 6 rounds than Sturm was in the first six rounds which costed him the fight after building an early lead. A ton of his punches were being blocked and it seemed like whenever Felix let go of any power punches, he was snapping the guy's head back. Like I said before, it's a debatable fight and I don't have a problem with someone saying Macklin should have won, but did he dominate the fight? Absolutley not. I didn't think that he won a single one of the last 6 rounds. I had it 7 rounds to 4 with 1 even. Was it a controversial decision? Yes, but you admitted it yourself. Sturm won 5 rounds clearly. I don't think any fight where one guy won 5 rounds clearly should be called a robbery. I don't know if you have seen it but Macklin's fight against Varon was much more of a controversial decision in my opinion, and he obnoxiously acted like he won it clearly so I didn't have any sympathy for him after the Sturm fight. The guy comes across as a hypocritical crybaby.

That's what I'm talking about, it's a major misunderstanding of scoring system from fans. It's like saying "I don't think if someone stolen from you less than 1000$ it should be called robbery". That's completely illogicall and, to be honest, just dumb and if someone says something like that I will always fight it. Fight is scored rounds by round and I suggest you lecture of that article.
http://www.badlefthook.com/2012/1/23...-williams-lara
And I've seen Varon fight, had it for Macklin by a point, or two.