Biggest Robbery's In Boxing History

:rofl: at this. the title is biggest robberies in boxing's HISTORY, and 3 of the options are in the last 10 years, and the other was 15 years ago.

Eubank-Schommer was the worst.

the kid diamond fight was horrible, santa cruz-casamayor was HIGHWAY ROBBERY As for mayweather-castillo, I thot Castillo won, but i'm not mad that he didn't win, im mad at those scores, the fight was very close and 116-111 did it no justice, an excellent fight nonetheless tho

Forrest - Quartey!

I cant say history, but the worst I have personally seen was Lewis vs. Holyfield I. That was the most pathetic bullshit and it hurt boxing.

Biggest Robbery's In Boxing History ? personallly it thought Reid v Ottke was one of the worst ive ever seen he was'nt even allowed to hit Ottke without being penalised tell us your suggestions Few months ago I saw a fight on Versus, Kid Diamond VS some mexican guy named Huerta (or something like that) with bunch of losses. The guy clearly won the fight and the judges UNANIMOUSLY gave it to Kid Diamond. That was one of the recent robberies I've seen. The anouncers were saying that Kid Diamond needs a KO to win the fight, and after they said that Kid Diamond himself hit the canvas and still won on the cards.

Biggest Robbery's In Boxing History ? personallly it thought Reid v Ottke was one of the worst ive ever seen he was'nt even allowed to hit Ottke without being penalised tell us your suggestions Why is Castillo/Mayweather even a candidate? It was a close fight that could have gone either way, I personally think castillo should have got the nod, but robbery?? not even close.

De la Hoya Trinidad

Some of you guys have a strange definition of a robbery. Floyd-Castillo, DLH-Whitaker, Leonard-Hagler, and Hatton-Collazo are often said to be robberies, but lets be real. They were all close fights that could've went either way. Just because you thought/wanted the fighter who lost to win doesn't make it a robbery. Quartey-Forrest was a robbery. There probably wasn't more than a dozen people in the arena that thought Forrest won that fight.

whitaker and castillo got robbed for sure. those 2 of the choices above tand out the most... but there has been even bigger robberies than that.. and many more

Forrets - Quartey was horrible Forrest won 2-3 rounds max....

I've heard Forrest-Quartey was a pretty shitty decision too. Haven't found time to watch it yet... in my queue of fights, but haven't quite gotten to it. Lederman scored it 97-92 for Quartey. UD for Forrest. Not even Lederman can botch that many rounds.

Oscar vs Sturm beats them all

The Reid - Ottke fight is the biggest robbery of the last decade IMO. Basically Reid outboxes Ottke for a minimum of 8 rounds, I think I scored it for Reid by 10 and yet the Judges manage to give the fight to Ottke, a complete disgrace that deprieved a honest fighter of a world title. The point deduction was farsical, the point was taken for apparent hitting around the back when in fact they were clean bodyshots. Fucking joke. Thanks for replying to my question; karma's on the way...

Can somebody here give me a synopsis of the Ottke-Reid fight? And how did the ref justify deducting points in this fight? The Reid - Ottke fight is the biggest robbery of the last decade IMO. Basically Reid outboxes Ottke for a minimum of 8 rounds, I think I scored it for Reid by 10 and yet the Judges manage to give the fight to Ottke, a complete disgrace that deprieved a honest fighter of a world title. The point deduction was farsical, the point was taken for apparent hitting around the back when in fact they were clean bodyshots. Fucking joke.

I used biggest in the sense that those fights were the most well known for showcasing boxing stars, and was well talked about. Superfights if you will. If John Duddy beat Howard Eastman with a controvercial decision in a lopsided fight against him I wouldn't call that "Big". Youre basing biggest on severity of the injustice. I'm judging it on scale. here are some robberies in big fights, some superfights and others that weren't superfights but still real title fights. they're a combination of both injustice and being important fights. holmes-spinks 2: holmes won 9-5-1. chavez-whitaker: whitaker won 8-4, but at least the decision was a draw and whitaker didn't lose his title. he didn't get the first to hang an official "l" on chavez though. holyfield-lewis i: lewis won 9-3. what a joke. escalera-everett: everett won 10-5.

Well without boxing fans, there IS NO BOXING, so you figure it out, smart guy.:boxing: Same with judges... which are better at scoring fights? The people who have dedicated the career part of their lives to judging fights, or some random dipshit who doesn't like Floyd Mayweather, and can't get over their personal biases. Anyone who says that Mayweather vs. Castillo was more incorrect than Whitaker vs. Chavez, has either not seen the Whitaker vs. Chavez fight, or hates Mayweather more than they appreciate boxing. I went Whitaker vs. Chavez, but I haven't seen Ottke vs. Reid.

WELCOME BACK GUNSTAR!!!!...........:banana:

alright, "newbies to the sport of boxing", instead of "newbies to the forums on boxing scene" regardless, some of those fights have no business being in the "biggest" robberies in the history of the sport when people still evenly argue who won the fight. I used biggest in the sense that those fights were the most well known for showcasing boxing stars, and was well talked about. Superfights if you will. If John Duddy beat Howard Eastman with a controvercial decision in a lopsided fight against him I wouldn't call that "Big". Youre basing biggest on severity of the injustice. I'm judging it on scale.

Holyfield and Lewis going to a draw, that was some bad ass judging. Another one to consider was Foreman vs. Briggs and Byrd vs. McCline