TOP 10 WORST DECISIONS EVER!!!!! great read

I was definitely referring to the first fight. :)Yes, I knew you were, pal. Just added the details as I remembered them. :)

Yes, 1990. The first fight. Richard Steele stopped the fight with only two seconds remaining in the 12th and final round although Taylor had risen at the count of five and appeared in no serious danger. Taylor was leading in two of three score cards at the time of the stoppage (only judge Chuck Giampa had it 115-114, Chavez, while the two others had Taylor leading by margins of 7 and 5.) It was a decision that Steele still cannot totally live down. I was definitely referring to the first fight. :)

Meldrick Taylor vs Julio Cesar Chavez?Yes, 1990. The first fight. Richard Steele stopped the fight with only two seconds remaining in the 12th and final round although Taylor had risen at the count of five and appeared in no serious danger. Taylor was leading in two of three score cards at the time of the stoppage (only judge Chuck Giampa had it 115-114, Chavez, while the two others had Taylor leading by margins of 7 and 5.) It was a decision that Steele still cannot totally live down.

The De la Hoya/ Whitaker fight was a clear robbery. You get points maybe not for walking away from clearly dodged punches but the notion that De la Hoya could be scoring by slearly missing those same punches is terrible. sweet Pea was the truth and got robbed in that fight. bottomline. And even though I think Ocsar got robbed against Trinidad it is hard for me to have sympathy for him after the sweet pea fight

Meldrick Taylor vs Julio Cesar Chavez?

German fights doesn´t count in this thread? Otherwise, i could name a few fights.. Yeah you go to Germany to fight a German you need a KO to get a draw. Oh and did you guys ever hear about that fight with Kevin Leoushing against an African where Kevin KOed him and the ref helped the other guy up and declared him the winner. I think the African died also. Can someone help me out with this info and the correct spelling of Kevins last name?

German fights doesn´t count in this thread? Otherwise, i could name a few fights..

Whitaker vs Chavez was a complete and utter joke. Now THAT'S a robbery.

DLH-trinidad

Whitaker got screwed over a lot. 3 of 10 on that list. He got screwed in 2 of them. The De La Hoya fight could of gone either way. Plus, Whitaker got gifts himself in the Wilfredo Rivera fights.

Did Whitaker have sex with a lot of judge's wives ? he seemed to be very unpopular with them !

It is a top 10 over 25 years. More years than than spots on the top list hence not all years will be in there.Of course. Obviously so. But, if one bothers to look, one may find several controversies that occured during the years that were excluded; controversies that are even better remembered as, at least, just about as bad as some of those cited. The first two Barrera-Morales meetings, for example, are often cited as a case of the second decision having been made to compensate for the error in the first. If this is true then each or both can arguably be equal to Leonard-Hearns. The first Barrera-Morales was in '02 and the second in '03. Both years are not in there. What I'm wondering about is what criteria were used to make the choices. I'm guessing that Leonard-Hagler is in there because it is open-ended--no closure-- while Barrera-Morales met for the third time to give the affair a semblance of finality (though it seems Barrera is talking about taking on Morales for the 4th time if Erik gets past Pacquiao). To further speak of "worst" decisions, one can cite the one made by one judge in the Pacquiao-Marquez fight who confessed to having made a bad call because he did not know the rule that he could have entered a 10-6 score (adding that he would have had he known.) That judge gets brownie points for honesty, but, his individual decision, spawned by sheer ignorance on the part of someone who must know, is a classic. Of course, individual decisions may not have been included; only totals. If so, there can be choices in this year alone, and one does not have to go very far back in the calendar to find one: The Japanese are known for many things, among them, their being ultranationalistic. Japanese boxing has always been considered by many as synonymous to "hometown decisions". One such decision came about last August when local hero, Koki Kameda went up against Jose Juan Landaeta of Venezuela for the vacant WBA LightFly crown left behind by Gustavo Padilla who had gone to campaign as a Flyweight. Kameda was KD'd in the first and was thoroughly dominated in the remaining rounds. Just the same, he won a Split D, which caused such an uproar in Japan itself that the television station that carried the fight was swamped with complaints--many of them, impolite and so un-Japanese. I didn't have to watch the fight to be convinced that the decision was indeed terrible. I only had to look at the reaction of the Japanese themselves. But, I watched the fight on tape. It has to rank as one of the worst. If Leonard-Hagler and Whitaker-DLaHoya are among the ten worst, then, it seems to me that Kameda-Landaeta has to be worse than the worst. The author of the article may have not heard of Kameda-Landaeta. He should have done some little research if only to make his list a little more... Had he done the research, he could not have missed it. It happened just over a month ago. Yes, in 2006--another year that is not in there. Perhaps, the author was listing only fights in the US? If so, he should have said so. But, even then....

Louis-Walcott I was one of the worst decisions ever. http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/showthread.php?t=89924

Good article. That Holyfield-Lewis one was a joke. I'd add Foreman-Briggs as well, but i'm sorry i have to agree with the Leonard-Hagler result, Hagler never won that fight at best it was a draw and that's pushing it. Good article though. :cool:

Interesting. The enumeration is chronological; it begins with 1986 and ends with 2001. And, it is supposed to cover controversies in the last 25 years, i.e., 1981-2006. The article has a September 16, 2006 timeline. None were listed for the years: '81, '82, '83, '84, '85, '89, '90, '94, '95, '96, '98, '00, '02, '03, '04, '05 and '06. It is a top 10 over 25 years. More years than than spots on the top list hence not all years will be in there.

to me briggs vs foreman was one of the worst but thats probably because i'm a foreman fan!

anybody who thought whitaker beat de la hoya opinion is invlade..and its not a "great read" like you said..you dont get points for ducking a punch then walking away with your back turned...whitaker didnt even hardly throw punches in the de la hoya fight..now the chavez fight no the other hand..whitaker won it actually, it was a great read :D and i thought u were banned? whens that happening? soon hopefully :D

The Holyfield v Lewis decision sticks in my mind, during the points count I had stated (in an Army mess bar)that if Lewis hadn't won I would ring the bell and get a drink for all! It cost me about £100 that night($185)

Good read folks

Interesting. The enumeration is chronological; it begins with 1986 and ends with 2001. And, it is supposed to cover controversies in the last 25 years, i.e., 1981-2006. The article has a September 16, 2006 timeline. None were listed for the years: '81, '82, '83, '84, '85, '89, '90, '94, '95, '96, '98, '00, '02, '03, '04, '05 and '06.