Lets hear your opinions

It looks like boxing these days tend to give the aggressor a slight edge in scoring. Regardless of whether or not its effective. My point being, in fights that are relativley close that involves a contrasts of styles it seems that the tactical/defensive/counterpuncher are always on the wrong end of the stick.. take for example last night more examples.. Peter v Toney 1 Hatton v Collazo Taylor V Spinks in all 4 of these fights.. the loser landed more clean shots and appared to have won the majority of the rounds. They all seemed to be controlling the fight and IMO all 4 should have won. I'm not just limiting it to these fights.. im only using them as an example. the list could go on and on. 8/10 times the loser in a close or controversial decision of a fight with contrasting styles.. its the so called aggressive fighter that wins.. Please lets here some examples of the opposite. The problem lies in the sport. Appreciating the talent of a tactical fighter is on the decline. For instance.. Andre Berto and Khan get all the hooha due to their styles where as a Lamont Peterson is not getting anywhere near the exposure he deserves. sorry if this makes no sense...