Biggest robberies in boxing..

You are right and that's because most of the fans here think that if the fighter they wanted to win didn't win, it was a robbery. Some of these choices are laughable. DLH vs Mosley II for example wasn't a robbery, it was a close fight and I also had DLH winning it but it was far from a robbery. Same with Pascal vs Hopkins, close fight, could have gone either way, not a robbery. People don't understand the difference between robbery and close decision. Just like a fighter can be competitive in a fight for the full 12 rounds and still be shut out. Rounds can be close but he can still lose all 12 rounds. People are real ignorant around here. What do you think about collazo vs berto? Close decision or robbery?

sturm-dela was an outright robbery. so was martinez- cintron.

You are right and that's because most of the fans here think that if the fighter they wanted to win didn't win, it was a robbery. Some of these choices are laughable. DLH vs Mosley II for example wasn't a robbery, it was a close fight and I also had DLH winning it but it was far from a robbery. Same with Pascal vs Hopkins, close fight, could have gone either way, not a robbery. People don't understand the difference between robbery and close decision. Just like a fighter can be competitive in a fight for the full 12 rounds and still be shut out. Rounds can be close but he can still lose all 12 rounds. People are real ignorant around here. I didn't think Mosley-DLH II was close, one time I watched it, scored it and my scorecard was so one-sided in favor of Oscar that I worried, seriously man lol Mainly because I've seen a few respectable posters have it for Mosley, don't see it though.

DLH-Sturm was BLATANT..UNREAL...

I don't think Hopkins-Pascal was a robbery by any stretch. I had Hop by a point or two but it was scored a draw, so nobody won and nobody lost, hence nobody got robbed. And Hopkins was knocked down TWICE in the fight. Now I know the knockdowns were not exactly devastating to Hopkins (and the first one was dubious at best) but he did go down, and when the guy who put you on the canvas twice is the defending champion, you cannot possibly expect to win a super close fight like that, and it's most certainly not a robbery when it happens like it did. In the rematch, all BHop has to do is BE BHop and not get knocked down. Do that and he wins. You are right and that's because most of the fans here think that if the fighter they wanted to win didn't win, it was a robbery. Some of these choices are laughable. DLH vs Mosley II for example wasn't a robbery, it was a close fight and I also had DLH winning it but it was far from a robbery. Same with Pascal vs Hopkins, close fight, could have gone either way, not a robbery. People don't understand the difference between robbery and close decision. Just like a fighter can be competitive in a fight for the full 12 rounds and still be shut out. Rounds can be close but he can still lose all 12 rounds. People are real ignorant around here.

I don't think Hopkins-Pascal was a robbery by any stretch. I had Hop by a point or two but it was scored a draw, so nobody won and nobody lost, hence nobody got robbed. And Hopkins was knocked down TWICE in the fight. Now I know the knockdowns were not exactly devastating to Hopkins (and the first one was dubious at best) but he did go down, and when the guy who put you on the canvas twice is the defending champion, you cannot possibly expect to win a super close fight like that, and it's most certainly not a robbery when it happens like it did. In the rematch, all BHop has to do is BE BHop and not get knocked down. Do that and he wins.

chris byrd vs fres oquendo was pretty bad too......

Although this fight was a majority decision in the right way, the judge who thought Eddie Chambers only managed a 113-113 draw against Dimitrenko was a terrible scorecard; remember being shocked with that. Also thought Kotelnik beat Alexander but was victim of a hometown decision although that's more controversial. More recently, Bhop vs Pascal, Hopkins did enough no question about it.

Lewis vs Holyfield I Ottke vs Reid Hopkins vs Pascal

good choices in here...just reading some posts made me mad as hell...not at the posters but at those bullsh!t decisions....since yall ALREADY ran through the classics...here's some recent bad calls...Funeka/Guzman I and Martinez/Cintron....man, I get mad just THINKING about those decisions :firedevil

Funeka vs. Guzman 1 I still remember it was one sided in favor of funeka, Guzman even wanted to quit of the ass beat he was receiving... and still got a draw the dude not even won 2 rounds imo and the rest were pretty clear.......

De la Hoya over John John Molina was nasty to my eyes Naw, Oscar won that fight. Molina just made it dirty but Oscar landed the better, cleaner shots.

any fight that collazo lost I was at the Boston Garden the night Luis Collazo dropped that very close decision to Ricky Hatton. There are three things I remember about that night... 1. Collazo should have gotten the decision, IMO. 2. Hatton fans singing "there' s only one Ricky Hatton" over and over and over again. 3. A group of young Collazo fans from NY sitting in North Station after the fight waiting for a train back to the Bronx just livid with the decision, sitting there grumbling about how their guy got shafted. :grumble:

first fight beetwen guzman and funeka

tapia vs ayala the 2nd fight was a robbery there was no question about. the first fight was close but i think he won both fights. i dont know if it was the worst in history, but robberies none the less

I think a lot of the fights used as examples in this thread don't really qualify as robberies. To me a robbery is a decision that is clearly and demonstrably wrong. A lot of the fights posted in this thread were far too close to be called robberies. Bad decision? Perhaps. Robbery? No. I actually think true robberies are rare in boxing. One thing that is common is poor scoring. Far too often the right guy gets the decision, but gets it by a widely inaccurate margin.

Just reading about some of these robberies puts my stomach in knots. It doesn't happen often, but it happens too often. Even the close, controversial fights, with the inevitable sole ref scoring a lopsided fight... :burnup: I think to myself, "There has to be a better way." But then I realize, this is boxing; no matter what you do, it can't outrun its own corrupt legacy.

hoya-trinidad castillo-mayweather 1 marquez-pac 2 Close fights aren't robberies and Marquez-Pac 2 could have went either way. I agree with #2 but not #1.

From what I remember, after fight during Foreman's interview, all he said was something like "Oh well there's nothing you can do about that, just be thankful for your family" he seemed to take it well. I didn't see Schultz-Foreman. Oh man..check out that fight when you can. It was handed to Foreman on a platter. Speaking of that, I've posted it before, but I was at a titty bar in L.A. out by the airport and I ran into a mexican guy. I was watching boxing and he was like "You a boxing fan?" I was like yeah...he said well I used to be a heavyweight boxer, and in Foreman's comeback I was offered a fight with him but only on one condition, I had to throw the fight and I get 100,000 for it. He said he turned it down though. When I got home, I looked the guy up and he was legit!

Foreman Briggs is a fight that often gets overlooked, mostly because Foreman was just about done with boxing, and he didn't make a big thing out of it. He didn't even complain about it. 9-3 for Briggs??? Horrible. Yeah I think he was disgusted....HOWEVER...Karma is a ***** because honestly, Axel Shultz kicked his ass too.