I know many don't like broner but that was no robbery

Of course it was no robbery. It was a close fight with close rounds and Broner got the nod. to anyone with common sense and 0 biase.....you should've seen all the "Granados got robbed posts.....every close fight seems to be a robbery when the guy they want to lose gets the nod

It does most times though doesn't it you jack*ss?? Now your just talking in circles... Why have you ignored what i said about conflict of intrest?? Is it because it destroys your argument and debunks everything you said?? Name 10 underdogs who in high profile fights actually won a decision on a rival promoters card against a name??? Lets stick to the last 2 years.... I'm literally talking directly as possible and no it's not necessarily most of the time. Sometimes it does sometimes it doesn't. I'm not disputing that there is corruption in boxing but a robbery isnt always due to corruption. You don't seem to understand what a robbery is. That's a very specific question and a strange one but off the top of my head Badou Jack just had decisions not go his way on a TMT card when he was the favourite. Pre determined decisions? Somehow I doubt it. In essence you're claiming that the vast majority of fights have pre determined winners.

Its not a surprise last night to see a bunch of sour grapes Many wanted to see Broner lose but he did enough to beat Granados He landed the better shots, showed decent defense and closed the fight stronger Granados did well, deserves a rematch but to call it a robbery is a joke. If you thought Granados was busier and won, cool but to say robbery is an exaggerating Of course it was no robbery. It was a close fight with close rounds and Broner got the nod.

It can if the promoters fighter always gets the benefit of the doubt.... You do realize your disgusting attitude basicaly condones gift decisions you sh*heel... You assume that every robbery is due to corruption. It isn't.

I would say the common trend these days is people like you defending rigged fights and crooked promoters.... You know, like what you are doing in the post i just quoted... And yet Broner got the decision... What a surprise... What do you expect from sheep and cowards??? This entire thread is proof of whats wrong with boxing... Where did this "close fights can't be robberies" nonsense come from?? Pure intellectual cowardice..... To suggest otherwise is just not logical You do realize that a promoter pays the judges wages?? This is called a conflict of interest you simple son of a b*tch... That is why "close fights" are almost always awarded to the fighter the promoter would prefer to see win.... James Toney was supposed to win and he got the win... The judges did what they what the promoter wanted them too so yes we could call that one pre determined as well you dopey c*nt... If you think James Toney got "beat up" in that fight but think broner/grandos was close then you are a clown.... At least Toney never got kod by the joe bloggs of the world... And lets face it bhop in his prime could never EVER beat joe bloggs in his wildest dreams.... Bloggs jr is too big too strong and far superior to bhop at in fighting....... The close fight doesn't always go to the A side though so your logic is completely flawed. Are some fights pre determined? Yes I would have thought so but if you allow a fight to be an either way fight then the fight isn't a robbery. Because you can argue either man won. If you make an argument for a guy winning then the fight wasn't robbed from you. You call me "dopey" yet you have once again brought up Bernard Hopkins for some unknown reason. I will say it again more clearly for you; I am not a fan of Bernard Hopkins. As for Toney-Tiberi, that fight was very one sided. Broner-Granados was obviously much closer but thats not saying much because Toney-Tiberi is one of the worst decisions in the history of the sport.

The poster above you is melting down. I seen that geezers post with his Charles Manson avi.

Loving the reaction by the forum for real. I'm boppin counting this money! The poster above you is melting down.

He out landed Granados. And connected in a much higher percentages. I don't see a robbery. Just like in the pacquiao fight. I thought Vargas won cause he was doing much better than I expected. And it was a terrible merry go around fight for Top Rank. Loving the reaction by the forum for real. I'm boppin counting this money!

how many gift decisions is this guy going to get? For all of you defending Broner, get a clue please. Of course this was a robbery. Why is it the guy with powerful promoter, network backing, gets the win in a so called "close fight" 90 to 100 percent of the time. This is why boxing is a JOKE that no one takes seriously anymore. WAKE THE F*** UP.

Didn't really score it but it was a pretty even fight. I wouldn't call it a robbery. This fight only reaffirms how limited a boxer Broner is. This guys a 4 weight champ��

I had it a draw. It's become common theme for really close fights to be called "robberies". Either guy could've got the nod last night

It was dead even I had a hard time scoring rounds cause both were landing combos after the other, but I do believe broner would of lost if it went 12 bruh passed out in his corner soon as the bell rang, he still drinking.

http://i.imgur.com/O7YsAUn.png RomanReigns here are the stats bruh - I thought this be a good place to share this. He out landed Granados. And connected in a much higher percentages. I don't see a robbery. Just like in the pacquiao fight. I thought Vargas won cause he was doing much better than I expected. And it was a terrible merry go around fight for Top Rank.

Its not a surprise last night to see a bunch of sour grapes Many wanted to see Broner lose but he did enough to beat Granados He landed the better shots, showed decent defense and closed the fight stronger Granados did well, deserves a rematch but to call it a robbery is a joke. If you thought Granados was busier and won, cool but to say robbery is an exaggerating Can you show me how he showed decent defense? He got hit with slow right hands by at best, a d level fighter. How did he land the better shots when Granados landed more often and just as strong. And how did he close the fight off strong? The only way you believe that is if you were watching the fight with pro Broner blinders on. The guy waso utworked and out roughed throughout the 10th round and in the last 10 seconds he opened up a bit. All of a sudden, the showtime crew tried making it sound like those 10 seconds were enough to win the round. If its 30 seconds, 40, aminute even, fair enough. 10 seconds is nothing. I could barely give Broner 4 rounds at most. The worst part is, this was supposed to be a fight where Broner gets a springboard onto something bigger. Instead, he came away looking worse than when he started. His stock is at an all time low. The win simply means he might become an easy option for Pac or Khan.

You are talking b*llocks Danny boy... A robbery by definition is pre determined, that's what makes it a robbery dumbo... Hence the expression "he needs a knockout to win" which is often said before rigged fights like broner vs granados. exceptions to this exist but they are far and few between. Like the inexplicable score category... More horsesh*t.... if the scoring of a fight is subjective then so is the perception of closeness you jack*ss... Broner was going to get the decision no matter what happen last night. All that coward had to do was make sure he didn't get knocked out. Agree or Disagree?? Nah, wrong. Corruption obviously exists in boxing but as does incompetence. Granados wasn't robbed and no I don't believe he needed a knock out to win. To suggest that almost every robbery in history was pre determined is just not logical. I mean, take Dave Tiberi beating up James Toney and getting robbed. Was that pre determined? Plus, if a fights close and an either way fight such as last night then it cant be a robbery because the other guy argubaly won. It just makes no sense to considsr a close fight a robbery

Broner is arguably 0-5 at WW. He. Needs. To. Stay. At. 140. It's not even a discussion he better hire a nutritionist and take care of his ****.

No robbery since it was very close but I had Granados winning by a round. This fight, once again showed us that Broner is far from a special fighter. Hes fast but and athletic but thats abt it. Getting a closed lost (or win) vs Granados shows ur not a an elite fightet. Good fightet yes, elite no

Broner-Granados Stats http://i.imgur.com/O7YsAUn.png RomanReigns here are the stats bruh - I thought this be a good place to share this.

Why are you so concerned with how others scored fights of your favorite boxers? Why do you force your opinion on this board as if it's the only opinion that could possibly be correct. I thought Broner lost a close fight. He retreated too much and held excessively. He should have been warned for holding and had points taken away if he continued to hold so much. Granados took the fight to him and threw many more punches and landed just as many punches. I don't think the fight was a robbery but the large amount of points Broner won by was a robbery. Broner was the A side. The star who was supposed to win and the judges made damn sure he won. The said on the show that 52% of the write in fans had Broner losing. Do you think even one person who thought the fight was a robbery will suddenly change their mind because you say it it wasn't a robbery? They won't. You do the same thing trying to prove to everyone that Ward deserved to win the Kovalev fight when most disagree. How about you score fights your way and let others do the same.

Simple yet incredibly accurate assessment... A robbery means the result was pre-determined... It has nothing to do with how close the fight was you daft b*stard. On a side note: It was hilarious to see b*tch hopkins kod by joe bloggs jr!! Don't ya think danny boy?? :) Its only a pity he was obstructed from having his head hit the concrete full power.... :) Then he ran away lol..... A robbery isnt necessarily pre determined. And if a fight is close then its not a robbery. Its impossible and illogical to be both. As for the side note, I'm guessing you are assuming I'm a Hopkins fan? Which I am not. So yes I found the whole thing very amusing.