Robberies

how about hagler-antuofermo 1? historically, louis-wolcott 1.

That first wilfred benitez-bruce curry fight, and maybe, possibly, both Chaplin-Page bouts.

Even Ali said after the third Norton fight that he got whooped. I can't remember the exact quote but it was something like "What's there to celebrate when you got whooped?"

Joel Casamayor SD Jose Armando Santa Cruz- this was a boring fight, but it was CLEAR to EVERYONE who watched the fight that Santa Cruz dominated. I'm a Casamayor fan, but he got handled that night and there was no one who had him winning more than 3 or at the most 4 rounds. Somehow the judges gave it to him by split decision Joe Louis SD Jersey Joe Walcott- Walcott did everything right; he dropped Louis twice, used his classic faints (which have now become legendary), and just befuddled Louis with his constant movement and counterpunching. Even Louis knew he lost the fight because before the scorecards were announced, he left the ring because he knew that he had just lost his title. The judges however, gave it to Louis by split decision- the crowd booed the decision; no matter what the judges said, Jersey Joe proved himself that night. Muhammad Ali SD Ken Norton (third fight) - As far as I'm concerned, Norton made history this night as becoming the only one to beat Ali twice. Norton confused Ali with his superb crab-style defense and simply outfought Ali for the majority of the rounds. The announcer, the crowd, and anyone watching knew that Norton deserved to be crowned new champ. Watch after the last round- Norton takes out his mouthpiece, looks at Ali and says something like "I wooped you tonight!" Ali just turned away and walked to his corner with none of his typical celebration- he had the look of a beaten man. Norton on the other hand, immediately began celebrating with his people- they knew he had just beaten the best heavyweight of the era for a second time. The judges however, gave the split decision to Ali and as a result he won their trilogy 2-1, but in my eyes, Norton was the true winner of that trilogy.

Calzaghe v Hopkins

Hearns was very unhappy, but, he also understood what Leonard was like with the media and so he wasn't overly surprised with it. He was also a very nice guy outside the ring and was pretty humble and I don't think it was in him to make a big deal of it. The way he went about quietly stating that he thought he should have taken it but that Leonard was a great champion etc etc, was very classy. I also think he was kind of happy that everyone knew it was highly obvious that he won, especially with the entire crowd chanting "Bullshit, bullshit!". As Silencers said, he has always wanted to prove that he could beat him even more convincingly in a third bout, but, I'm pretty sure Leonard wanted no part of a third fight after what happened in the rematch. It was a very odd decision, after all, they were both massive stars, albeit Leonard the much larger media darling, but after dominating the early rounds and most of the middle to latter part of the fight, as well as scoring two knockdowns, it was just stunning that it was scored that way. It should been a wide UD win for Hearns, but, as always they wouldn't allow Leonard to have a loss to ruin any potential future 'super fights', though he would have generated the same type of hype even if he had lost the decision. Ahhhh well, that's the corruptness of the slime behind boxing. You say 'as always' they wouldn't allow Leonard to have a loss. Had something similar happened before or did again? EDIT: I know some people think Hagler beat Leonard, but I don't share that view.

The Leonard and Hearns one was absurd. There is no way on earth that fight could have been scored a draw. None. I thought both fighters seemed suspiciously unsurprised and unconcerned by the result though. Hearns was very unhappy, but, he also understood what Leonard was like with the media and so he wasn't overly surprised with it. He was also a very nice guy outside the ring and was pretty humble and I don't think it was in him to make a big deal of it. The way he went about quietly stating that he thought he should have taken it but that Leonard was a great champion etc etc, was very classy. I also think he was kind of happy that everyone knew it was highly obvious that he won, especially with the entire crowd chanting "Bullshit, bullshit!". As Silencers said, he has always wanted to prove that he could beat him even more convincingly in a third bout, but, I'm pretty sure Leonard wanted no part of a third fight after what happened in the rematch. It was a very odd decision, after all, they were both massive stars, albeit Leonard the much larger media darling, but after dominating the early rounds and most of the middle to latter part of the fight, as well as scoring two knockdowns, it was just stunning that it was scored that way. It should been a wide UD win for Hearns, but, as always they wouldn't allow Leonard to have a loss to ruin any potential future 'super fights', though he would have generated the same type of hype even if he had lost the decision. Ahhhh well, that's the corruptness of the slime behind boxing.

At they're age? What are they looking for...a 6 round fight. :dunno::dunno:

What, now? They may still be young enough to find a home in the LHW division! There was an article posted a few weeks ago just before the Cotto-Margarito fight where Leonard and Hearns were giving their assessment of the fight, Leonard mentioned something about Hearns calling him out for a third fight but Leonard declined. Or cruiserweights, has the third oldest combined age of titlists in boxing.

Yeah, no way that could have been scored a draw especially with the 2 knockdowns. I think Hearns is still bitter about it, he keeps calling Leonard out of a third fight. What, now? They may still be young enough to find a home in the LHW division!

The Leonard and Hearns one was absurd. There is no way on earth that fight could have been scored a draw. None. I thought both fighters seemed suspiciously unsurprised and unconcerned by the result though. Yeah, no way that could have been scored a draw especially with the 2 knockdowns. I think Hearns is still bitter about it, he keeps calling Leonard out of a third fight.

Pernell Whitaker vs Jose Luis Ramirez 1. Pernell Whitaker vs JCC. Thomas Hearns vs Ray Leonard 2. The Leonard and Hearns one was absurd. There is no way on earth that fight could have been scored a draw. None. I thought both fighters seemed suspiciously unsurprised and unconcerned by the result though.

JCC Jr vs. Vanda Calzaghe vs. Hopkins

I think De La Hoya/Trinidad , Quartey/Forrest , Taylor/Chavez I (please dont take my head off), and most recently Holt/Torres II (that was a headbutt that had Torres KO'd on the ropes before that sucker punch right hand landed him on the floor) Out of all those, the only one that comes even slightly close to being a horrible robbery is Quartey against Forrest. All the rest were disputable, maybe even plain wrong, but none of them compare with a real robbery. There needs to be some kind of policing on this board for robbery threads. The 'Close Decision Non-Robbery Police'. A vicious bunch of authoritarian nazi types that decide which fights can be talked about as being robberies, because the majority of fights that are talked here as robberies are not robberies at all. Anyway, enough of that. I think whenever you think a fight is a robbery, the first thing you need to do is review the fight without any sound. This helps to be completely objective, which, despite the fact you may think you already are, is often not the case. Especially if it's a fighter you like that loses. A fight is generally a robbery when it is universally recognised as an horrible, corrupt decision in which the fighter that won a minimum of three quarters of the fight easily was not given the decision. Some typical bad robberies are: the Whitaker fights (Ramirez and Chavez), Hearns/Leonard 2, Fenech/Nelson 1, Cruz/Casa, Augustus/Burton, Lewis/Holyfield, Louis/Walcott, Diamond/Huerta, Spinks/Holmes, Jones/Park, Hagler/Antofermo, Foreman/Briggs, Reid/Ottke etc etc. Some fights that are disputed but are not robberies are: Hoya/Trinidad, Hagler/Leonard (I personally think it was the correct decision. Bad scoring having Leonard winning by any more then one or two rounds at most, but Hagler lost it for himself by giving away the first few rounds being a dick), Pac/Marquez fights along with the Norwood and John fights for Martquez, Hatton/Collazo, Mayweather/Castillo 1, Toney/Griffin, Sturm/Oscar, Toney/Peter 1, Taylor/Chavez, Hoya/Whitaker and on and on and on. These aforementioned fights are not robberies! They were all close fights that could have been scored quite differently depending on the style of boxing you liked, or having certain swing rounds going different ways, or not agreeing with the referee's decision despite it being the referee's decision and possibly the right one, while maybe not the best one. There are a myriad of reasons why these fights were not robberies. Despite that, they are all close fights and if you think your fighter won easily, your next-door neighbour will think the opposite and both will be right! Go watch the 'robbery' fights and then judge the rest, without sound, on those. You may change your tune very quickly, unless of course, you cannot get over your bias for a fighter you like, which is the biggest reason for all these ridiculous accusations of 'Robbery!'. Skewed objectivity due to the idolisation of a specific fighter will always ruin your scoring and create threads, nay, posts like the majority in here. Hatton vs Collazo was not in any way, shape or form a robbery. Not even close. The fight was close.

Toney vs Griffin I & II (The rematch was worst) Whitaker vs Chavez Santa Cruz vs Cassamayor Whitaker vs Ramirez Marquez vs John (home cooking) Mayweather vs Castillo I Marquez vs Pacquiao II (it was close but JMM won) Hatton vs Collazo Chavez vs Taylor ( the biggest robbery ever )

Erik Morales vs Guty Espadas 1.

Sturm vs Oscar HATTON VS COLLAZO

Winky was ROBBED in that B-Hop fight, Winky easily won that fight. The Tito/Oscar argument I had a DRAW but if anyone won I believe it was prolly Oscar as much as I HATE to admit it!!!!

Throughout the history of the sport there has been quite a few robberies when it comes to Boxing compared to ANY other sport. Whether its a BS decision or a bad stoppage...What is the worst Robbery in the history of the sport? Juan Coggi-Eder Gonzalez I

People confuse Robberies with tight,tough decisions...A tough dec is JMM-Pac I,II which were so close it couldn't be called robbery. A robbery is SantaCruz-Casamayor and JC Chavez JR vs Vanda WHEN that judge gave JR every round NOW THATS A ROBBERY! Lorenzo vs Soto (Thanks To Joe Cortez) Peter vs McCline (Scoring was terrible) Holy vs Lewis I (I thought Lewis beat him worse this fight then when they actually gave him the belts) Lefty