Since when is a close fight by 1 or 2 points a robbery?

LOL he gets knocked down twice and you say won by at least 4 points? thats impossible lol add it up son he won by 6 points if the two knocked but lost every round in the rest of the fight 10*2=20 2 rounds he got 10-8 rounds in 9*10=90 10 rounds he lost with 9-10 ronds 90+20=110 Hopkins 8*2=16 on the 2 round he got knocked down 10*10=100 on the 10 rounds he won 100+16=116 116-110=6 pascal needed to win 3 more rounds to even tie the fight which we all know he didnt win 3 rounds after round 3

if he wanted Pascals belt he shouldnt of went to the canvas simple as that son, gotta win the belt from a champ decisively SON he did win decisively(to people who know how to score) it was only close to people who score on emotion. canadians/butthurt tarver

It's always been that way on message boards. I once started a thread saying what the worst robbery of all-time was, and showed a fight (Coggi-Gonzalez 1) where Coggi, under fair rules, had THREE occasions in one round where he lost by either stoppage or DQ. Idiots responded with, Mayweather-Castillo 1 and Taylor-Wright.

giving every somewhat competitive round to pascal is impartial? i think that's the definition of being biased. if he scored each round based on its own merit he would have hopkins winning but he chose to give pascal the somewhat close rounds to he could have an excuse to have pascal winning. just because a round is competitive doesn't mean pascal automatically gets it. you say to yourself ok pascal landed some nice punches but hopkins landed even more while making it his type of fight. if hopkins was just following him around not landing like calzaghe than yes you would give the round to pascal based on clean punches but hopkins put in good effective work to the head and body while controlling the ring so hopkins deserves the round. if he wanted Pascals belt he shouldnt of went to the canvas simple as that son, gotta win the belt from a champ decisively SON

decisive even with the knockdowns? B Hop didnt clean out every round after the 3rd scorecards for Pascal (In my HONEST OPINION) 1.10-8 2.10-9 3.10-8 4.9-10 5.10-10 6.9-10 7.9-10 8.9-10 9.9-10 10.9-10 11.9-10 12.10-9 113-114 for Hopkins...by 1 point in my honest opinion 1 more round could of been given to Pascal by anyone and it would been 114-113 for Pascal...how is a fight that close on the cards a ROBBERY? LMFAO It was a draw, it was not a robbery...if they scored it 120-111 for Pascal ala Williams-Martinez I then I would agree, it would be robbery but it was a draw. And the canadian judge was impartial with his scorecard too giving every somewhat competitive round to pascal is impartial? i think that's the definition of being biased. if he scored each round based on its own merit he would have hopkins winning but he chose to give pascal the somewhat close rounds to he could have an excuse to have pascal winning. just because a round is competitive doesn't mean pascal automatically gets it. you say to yourself ok pascal landed some nice punches but hopkins landed even more while making it his type of fight. if hopkins was just following him around not landing like calzaghe than yes you would give the round to pascal based on clean punches but hopkins put in good effective work to the head and body while controlling the ring so hopkins deserves the round.

If you want to take the belt from the champ, win it decisively, not just by ONE POINT If Pac gets beat by 1 point eveyone here would say "THEY GOTTA BEAT EM DECISIVELY!!! PAC IS THE CHAMP"

LOL he gets knocked down twice and you say won by at least 4 points? thats impossible lol add it up son it's not impossible at all. if hopkins won the other 10 rounds it would be 116-110.

Hopkins won by at least 4 points. LOL he gets knocked down twice and you say won by at least 4 points? thats impossible lol add it up son

you missing the point Lakas :laugh: Pascal got the knockdowns, then did nothing else the whole fight he woulda on if he had some rounds to go with his 2 KD rounds but he didn't Hopkins was 4 points down due to the knockdowns then he swept up the rest of the fight it shouldn't have been a draw, but a decisive win for Hopkins decisive even with the knockdowns? B Hop didnt clean out every round after the 3rd scorecards for Pascal (In my HONEST OPINION) 1.10-8 2.10-9 3.10-8 4.9-10 5.10-10 6.9-10 7.9-10 8.9-10 9.9-10 10.9-10 11.9-10 12.10-9 113-114 for Hopkins...by 1 point in my honest opinion 1 more round could of been given to Pascal by anyone and it would been 114-113 for Pascal...how is a fight that close on the cards a ROBBERY? LMFAO It was a draw, it was not a robbery...if they scored it 120-111 for Pascal ala Williams-Martinez I then I would agree, it would be robbery but it was a draw. And the canadian judge was impartial with his scorecard too

because you can only have a draw if you bend over backwards for pascal and score the fight incorrectly

Hopkins won by at least 4 points.

LOL you make no sense, you say he won cuz he won the later rounds but he lost points on the knockdowns Thats the determining factor, he got the draw cuz of the knockdowns. If B-Hop knocked Pascal down 2 times and Pascal came on later everyone would be ok with a Hopkins win too LOL just like Pacquiao Marquez II Case closed, Bernard shouldnt of got knocked down LMFAO you missing the point Lakas :laugh: Pascal got the knockdowns, then did nothing else the whole fight he woulda on if he had some rounds to go with his 2 KD rounds but he didn't Hopkins was 4 points down due to the knockdowns then he swept up the rest of the fight it shouldn't have been a draw, but a decisive win for Hopkins

you can have a close decision without close rounds the rounds in Hopkins-Pascal weren't close Pascal scratched in because of the knockdowns Hopkins was battered early, then owned the rest of the fight the ending total points were close, but the fight was not Hopkins won clearly and didn't get the decision Boxing 101.

Since the era of the internet

you can have a close decision without close rounds the rounds in Hopkins-Pascal weren't close Pascal scratched in because of the knockdowns Hopkins was battered early, then owned the rest of the fight the ending total points were close, but the fight was not Hopkins won clearly and didn't get the decision LOL you make no sense, you say he won cuz he won the later rounds but he lost points on the knockdowns Thats the determining factor, he got the draw cuz of the knockdowns. If B-Hop knocked Pascal down 2 times and Pascal came on later everyone would be ok with a Hopkins win too LOL just like Pacquiao Marquez II Case closed, Bernard shouldnt of got knocked down LMFAO

you can have a close decision without close rounds the rounds in Hopkins-Pascal weren't close Pascal scratched in because of the knockdowns Hopkins was battered early, then owned the rest of the fight the ending total points were close, but the fight was not Hopkins won clearly and didn't get the decision