Do you think Robberies are judge based or Promoter/Network based?

both........

The judges always understand who the promoter is and who the house fighter is. It doesn't need to be spelled out for them. To keep getting sweet assignments the judges often try to please the promoter.

Anyone that stands to profit from a decision going a certain way, it could have nothing to do with the fighters directly it could be a gambling setup. Do you even wonder why 1 scorecard is out of whack when it is just as easy to have 2 or even 3 on lock (and that one car is a draw). Answer is simple gambling purposes how much money is laid on majority decision in comparison to ud or even split.

When a robbery happens in a boxing match, do you think the issues are just a way the judge saw the fight, maybe judge personal bias or etc.. Or when Robberies occur or disputed decisions do you think it always has a background reason such as a Promoter or Network? The reason I ask because some people look at it was the judges opinion, and some look at there always being a motive behind it. Yes. Promoters will rob their own fighter if necessary for "more money" on future fights. Its stupid I know. :pat:

The network hbo vilified the judges on the weekend I think the Taylor Hopkins decisions were network bias. Hbo wanted a future star. Ledermans scorecards were biased. The commentary in the first fight was biased

more than half of the time i dont even see these robberies, in regards to the winner, but sometimes the scorecards seem truely unfathomable

This is a great question. I think it is a bit of both. But I lean more towards the promoter for being at fault.