What is a "close fight" are they always controversial?

Post Golovkin-Jacobs, and before that Kovalev Ward, there was a lot of talk about the fight being a close fight and some felt further that it was also a controversial or disputed decision. I am gonig to explore those definitions a bit. What is close? Well clearly a 7-5 (115-113) fight is close. If one round goes the other way, you have a draw. So, is 8-4 (116-112) close? One guy won twice as many rounds as the other guy, he can give up one round and still have won. I would argue, 8-4 is not a close fight, it's not a wide victory either, but it's not close. Similarly, going 6-6 with a knockdown, (114-113) is a close fight. But for the knock down, you have a draw, if you gave up one more round, 5-7, you would actually lose. Note, that was the result in Kovalev Ward, one of the reasons that fight was so controversial. So what about 7-5 with a knock down (115-112)? Like 8-4, with 7-5 and a knock down, you can give up a round and still have one. However, in 8-4, if you give up 2 rounds you have a draw, whereas here you would have a narrow loss. If you define close as the ability to give up one round and change the result of the fight, (win to draw, or win to loss), then by that definition 7-5 with a knockdown is not close. I think that is the most logical definition of what is close, that changing one round changes the result of the fight. Applied to Golovkin Jacobs, changing one round would result in a split decision win rather than a unanimous win. It's the same result in the history books. Now, was the win controversial or disputed? Well, some people treat all close decisions as controversial or disputed, which is not a crazy definition, if it was close enough one round would have changed the result, you could probably also argue one round could have gone the other way. Besides closeness of the fight, whether or not the judges were unanimous should be considered. If different judges came to different conclusions, then unless that one judge is a bizarre outlier, it definitely implies that the result is in dispute. In Golovkin Jacobs, the judges were unanimous. If you break it down more precisely, The were unanimous on 8 of 12 rounds. Golovkin won 5 unanimously, and Jacobs won 3 unanimously. Given the knockdown, Golovkin only needed 1 out of 4 disputed rounds in order to win. Far more controversial would be a result where the person who got knocked down swept all the close rounds, which is precisely what happened in Kovalev Ward. Yes there is an argument that Ward won, but it seems more liekly and more fair to give at least 1 of the 4 close rounds to Kovalev. In Golovkin Jacobs, 2 of the 3 judges split the disputed rounds 2 and 2, and 1 of the judges, Deluca, Gave Jacobs 3 out of 4 of them. Looked at it another way, if judges were allowed to say a round is a draw, as they used to, it is likely that you would have 5 golovkin, 3 jacobs, and 4 draws, plus the knockdown. Therefore, it seems far less applicable to call Golovkin Jacobs controversial than Kovalev Ward by comparison. Besides closeness, and how unanimous the judges are, you can also look at punch stats. If the fighter who won also hit more, there is clearly no controversy, but if the reverse is true, that would be evidence of judging mistake. Of course, punch stats are not the only thing that determines who wins a round, but boxing is about hit and not be hit. Likewise, Golovkin threw more hit more and hit at a higher percentage, whereas Kovalev, while closer to Ward, also hit Ward more. For the same reasons those numbers support a controversy in Kovalev Ward, they indicate that the result was correct in Golovkin Jacobs. Golovkin clearly won on the after fight 'who would you rather be' test as well. While Jacobs face was puffy and his eyes were swelling close to close, Golovkin looked less marked up than he did after five rounds with Brook. So why do some fights feel controversial when all the numbers support the result? Several reasons, if you expect an extreme result, a knock out, then one person can feel like a winner merely by surviving. The expectation was that Jacobs and Ward would get knocked out, since that didn't happen, they must have in turn won. It's not true but can certainly feel true. The fighter to win the later rounds leaves the last impression. Boxing is scored round by round. Winning the last 5 rounds will feel like a terrific comeback, but you have still lost. (Garcia-Peterson). Similarly, doing well after a knockdown feels like a comeback. While that can feel correct to casual fans, the judges score the fight round by round. Ringside and judges see more that casuals, who's reactions can be heard on television. People in the stands see punches thrown, not necessarily punches blocked, caught, or slipped. I bet a lot of people were surprised by the compubox results, Jacobs himself thought that he threw and hit more, neither of which was true. Like Hagler v Leonard, methodical jabbing can be outweighed in the minds of the casual fan and even the judge by spurts of flashy combination throwing. Even if the jab hits half the time and the combos miss most of the time. That's why what the judge sees is different from the people in the stands.