Rulebook For Claiming Robbery

Oh yeah, and that asshole _Ricky_ made a Mayweather-Castillo I poll. Wow, I picked a really good day to bump this.

A new thread suggesting that Marquez was robbed. How about that? Some people will never let it go homey.

A new thread suggesting that Marquez was robbed. How about that?

We don't even need to do that. I just continually bump it whenever some moron claims robbery. Hav ever said what a great thread this is?

GET EVERYONE TO SIG THE LINK TO THIS THREAD and then refer to it later on when there is a close fight :) We don't even need to do that. I just continually bump it whenever some moron claims robbery.

Since everyone seems to think that every close fight is a robbery (and blatantly incorrectly so), I figured I would put a rulebook together to let everyone know when to use the word and when not to. Just a reminder to everyone that robbery means that someone intentionally took the fight away from the winner. That means a robbery cannot be based on someone being an idiot and not knowing how to effectively judge. The argument "Harold Lederman" can't score for shit, is not an effective defense for claiming robbery. 1. The fighter who is "robbed" has to win at least 7 rounds beyond any doubt whatsoever (barring any knockdowns or point deductions). These rounds that are won beyond any certainty are going to be called "lock rounds". This means that if there is any argument whatsoever that a certain fighter won the round at all, then it can't be used as a lock round. 2. You cannot watch and score the fight in question on sopcast. You need to have an actual, clear, unobstructed view of the fight to make such a bold statement. 3. Harold Lederman cannot agree with the judging panel if it is a robbery. Since the judging panel would need to intentionally take the fight away from a fighter, they would obviously be motivated against that person. Why the fuck would Harold Lederman be motivated to rob someone when his scorecard doesn't mean anything? This also rings true for Showtime's press row scoring. 4. You have to have seen all 3 minutes of all 12 rounds in order to make a call on whether it is a robbery or not. For all you know, the 8th round that you missed was a 10-8 round against the guy you thought won. No judging may be made based on highlight videos either. 5. A knockdown is not an automatic victory. Just because one fighter got their ass kicked for one of the 12 rounds does not mean that they automatically lose the fight. Saying "How could Pacquiao lose? Did you see what he did to Marquez in the first round?" makes you an idiot. A 10-6 round can easily be negated by 4 10-9 rounds the other way. That would give a score of 46-46, and there are still 7 rounds to go. With that said, quit fucking calling every fight a robbery. Pavlik-Taylor II was not a robbery. Calzaghe-Hopkins was not a robbery. Casamayor-Santa Cruz was a robbery. See the difference? GET EVERYONE TO SIG THE LINK TO THIS THREAD and then refer to it later on when there is a close fight :)

theres a difference between close fights and robberys...........

Another Mayweather-Castillo I thread. :nonono:

:wtf: :wtf: I am a Forrest fan that is saying that I see no possible way that Forrest won that fight. Oh of course. I have no problem with people scoring the first fight for Castillo, but people shouldn't claim it was a robbery. I'd also like to say even if the punches get partially through, it still shouldn't count as much as flush shots that Floyd (or anyone in a simiular situation) land. Mayweather Castillo 1 though also had Castillo landing some shots so it's harder to score. Round 8 however is a round that shouldn't be scored even and should be scored for Mayweather. Here's the real problem with scoring that fight. I think that both power and resistance to damage can and should be factored into a fight. Castillo had good power, and an incredible chin, both of which will work in his favor. A flush shot from Floyd that he doesn't put his weight into would count for some points in a round, but a full power, half-blocked shot from Castillo might do as much damage with what parts of it got through. This is the kind of stuff that makes scoring so difficult and why a variety of different scorecards are correct IMO. And yes, I know you don't think Mayweather-Castillo I was a robbery... you are pretty intelligent. :)

:wtf: :wtf: :ugh: Vernon Forrest won 1 round in the whole fight

Oh of course. I have no problem with people scoring the first fight for Castillo, but people shouldn't claim it was a robbery. I'd also like to say even if the punches get partially through, it still shouldn't count as much as flush shots that Floyd (or anyone in a simiular situation) land. Mayweather Castillo 1 though also had Castillo landing some shots so it's harder to score. Round 8 however is a round that shouldn't be scored even and should be scored for Mayweather.

Robbery Vernon Forrest - Ike Quartey Close Fight Hopkins - Calzaghe :wtf: :wtf:

Mayweather-Castilo 1 is one of those fights you really have to pay close attention to. Mayweather was blocking and making Castillo miss with some of those bodyshots and there is no doubt that it was a close fight, but you really have to pay close attention to these things. Round 8 in that fight is a classic example. I was rewatching this fight for the umpteenth time and one day I was just watching kinda focusing on other things and Castillo does really good with his agression in this round even when he got the point deducted. Or so I thought. I found it strange that I scored it this time even when all the others times I had scored that round 10-8 for Mayweather. I went back and rewatched it again right away paying attention this time. When you do, you can clearly see Castillo's shots missing or blocked and then Mayweather countering. Also, DiegoFuego is right. Harold Ledderman is usually horrible when scoring Mayweather fights. Jesus Chavez vs Floyd Mayweather, he scored round 1 for Chavez when Mayweather clearly outlanded him. Not just on Copubox, but just in general. Jim Lampley had to say "Wait Harold, you scored round 1 for Chavez, is that correct?" when Harold was giving his score. They need to fire Harold and replace him with Larry and then just put Max in all the time too. And that is why I have no problem with people scoring it for Mayweather. But there definately is not an exact correct way to score a partially blocked body shot from Castillo. Obviously it still going to do some damage, so it depends on how much credit a judge gives a fighter for a partial land. Am I right? The same rings true for the rematch. A 7-5 scorecard is not ridiculous, because Floyd is a master at slipping punches, but a lot of times, when he blocks with his gloves, the punches get at least partially through.

Something else: A split or majority decisions does not necessarily mean a closer fight than a unianimous decision and just because a fighter wins all of the rounds doesn't mean that it wasn't a close fight. You could have a fight with one guy losing the first six fairly even rounds then pasting his opponent for the remainder including a knockdown in the 12th for a 114-113 victory that is more one-sided than a back and fourth 120-108 fight in which the loser only just lost all the rounds. Calzaghe - Hopkins was a case of a lot of close rounds being called for Calzaghe. If Hopkins was doing "anything he wanted" to Calzaghe then he might have been more dominant in more rounds. Come to think of it if he was doing "whatever he wanted" does that mean he "wanted" to feign injury to get a rest? But could have gone to Hopkins. Calzaghe-Hopkins was a fight that had rounds that could have gone to either fighter and by no means a robbery.

Mayweather-Castilo 1 is one of those fights you really have to pay close attention to. Mayweather was blocking and making Castillo miss with some of those bodyshots and there is no doubt that it was a close fight, but you really have to pay close attention to these things. Round 8 in that fight is a classic example. I was rewatching this fight for the umpteenth time and one day I was just watching kinda focusing on other things and Castillo does really good with his agression in this round even when he got the point deducted. Or so I thought. I found it strange that I scored it this time even when all the others times I had scored that round 10-8 for Mayweather. I went back and rewatched it again right away paying attention this time. When you do, you can clearly see Castillo's shots missing or blocked and then Mayweather countering. Also, DiegoFuego is right. Harold Ledderman is usually horrible when scoring Mayweather fights. Jesus Chavez vs Floyd Mayweather, he scored round 1 for Chavez when Mayweather clearly outlanded him. Not just on Copubox, but just in general. Jim Lampley had to say "Wait Harold, you scored round 1 for Chavez, is that correct?" when Harold was giving his score. They need to fire Harold and replace him with Larry and then just put Max in all the time too.

Something else: A split or majority decisions does not necessarily mean a closer fight than a unianimous decision and just because a fighter wins all of the rounds doesn't mean that it wasn't a close fight. You could have a fight with one guy losing the first six fairly even rounds then pasting his opponent for the remainder including a knockdown in the 12th for a 114-113 victory that is more one-sided than a back and fourth 120-108 fight in which the loser only just lost all the rounds. Calzaghe - Hopkins was a case of a lot of close rounds being called for Calzaghe. If Hopkins was doing "anything he wanted" to Calzaghe then he might have been more dominant in more rounds. Come to think of it if he was doing "whatever he wanted" does that mean he "wanted" to feign injury to get a rest?

9-3 for the rematch isn't bad at all. I don't see how people got 7-5. At worst 8-4. 2 things: 1. You could give round 4 to Castillo in the first 5 rounds of Mayweather Castillo 1. 2. Al Bernstein scored fucking Casamayor Corrales 2, like 10-2 for Corrales :ugh: 9-3 for the rematch is a little excessive IMO. 7-5 or 8-4 is about right I think. And I'm a lot more open to the idea of it now that you said it, rather than someone who claimed that giving three rounds to Hatton is absurd and having Castillo winning the first fight is absurd as well. Both of those fights could be scored a variety of ways. And honestly, this goes hand-in-hand with what I am saying for this thread. Mayweather really never locks rounds down by winning them so convincingly that he can't lose. Castillo had some power on those body shots that he threw in both fights. It's not inconceivable that a judge might give him more credit for one than someone else does, because it is impossible to get a 100% accurate perception of how much a punch hurts. It is all subjective.

Lol at you scoring the rematch 117-111 and then talking about people not being allowed near a fight. :lol1: You should call up HBO and see if they need a replacement for Lederman. :lol1: 9-3 for the rematch isn't bad at all. I don't see how people got 7-5. At worst 8-4. Got a few complaints with this. You can't hold any weight to those press row scores because I have seen some downright HORRIBLE ones. In the Woods-Tarver fight, one of those guys (he was British, go figure) had Woods winning like 5 or 6 rounds. Harold Lederman also brings a lot of bias to his card as well. He gave Hatton like 3 rounds against Mayweather for crying out loud and had Castillo WINNING. The dude has judged Mayweather fights very poorly throughout his time with HBO. While those cards don't mean anything, they are something a losing fighter's fans will point to and say LOOK MY GUY WON HERE. The only card I ever pay attention to is Al Bernstein's because I don't think that guy can be wrong on anything boxing related. 2 things: 1. You could give round 4 to Castillo in the first 5 rounds of Mayweather Castillo 1. 2. Al Bernstein scored fucking Casamayor Corrales 2, like 10-2 for Corrales :ugh:

Robbery Vernon Forrest - Ike Quartey Close Fight Hopkins - Calzaghe

If you gave Hatton three rounds, you don't need to be anywhere near judging a fight. That fight was a fucking massacre on points and bloodshed. If you didn't give Mayweather 5 of the first 6 rounds against Castillo, then you cannot judge a fucking fight. So how does Lederman have Castillo winning by four points if Mayweather wins 5 of the first 6? Because he's biased as fuck. I think he had their second fight close too when it was like 9 rounds to 3 he had it like 7-5. Lol at you scoring the rematch 117-111 and then talking about people not being allowed near a fight. :lol1: You should call up HBO and see if they need a replacement for Lederman. :lol1: