Dark Destroyer vs the G man rematch

[Humean]

After hearing that two judges had Groves only one point ahead in a fight he was dominating, I'm convinced the referee was looking for an opportunity to save Froch from defeat.

So basically you think Howard Foster is corrupt? Or you think it is a lot more subtle than that?

[Scott9945]

So basically you think Howard Foster is corrupt? Or you think it is a lot more subtle than that?

My opinion is that Foster made his decision in the best interests of other parties rather than just bad judgment. But of course I don't know anything about Foster's history as a referee and can't be certain of that. Like I said previously the judges questionable scorecards indicated to me that Froch was being protected.

[Humean]

My opinion is that Foster made his decision in the best interests of other parties rather than just bad judgment. But of course I don't know anything about Foster's history as a referee and can't be certain of that. Like I said previously the judges questionable scorecards indicated to me that Froch was being protected.

I just understand why you'd assume essentially criminal behaviour when it can be explained without such an extreme explanation. I mean I know the sport has historical be clouded in corruption but there is no evidence that it is now. Surely the judges were just seeing too much of what Froch did good because he was the bigger name, the sort of unconscious prejudice (to go with many others) that we are all guilty of and it is this which makes the scoring of fights so controversial.

[Scott9945]

I just understand why you'd assume essentially criminal behaviour when it can be explained without such an extreme explanation. I mean I know the sport has historical be clouded in corruption but there is no evidence that it is now. Surely the judges were just seeing too much of what Froch did good because he was the bigger name, the sort of unconscious prejudice (to go with many others) that we are all guilty of and it is this which makes the scoring of fights so controversial.

You may call it criminal behavior, but it really is just business as usual in boxing. Believing otherwise seems terribly naïve to me. And on a boxing message board, I don't need evidence. I just have to think so.

[Humean]

You may call it criminal behavior, but it really is just business as usual in boxing. Believing otherwise seems terribly naïve to me. And on a boxing message board, I don't need evidence. I just have to think so.

It is criminal behaviour if true, it is fraud. Believing otherwise is not naive it is actually thinking about it rather than merely assuming.

What is an opinion worth without evidence/reasons? Nothing is the answer.

[Scott9945]

It is criminal behaviour if true, it is fraud. Believing otherwise is not naive it is actually thinking about it rather than merely assuming.

What is an opinion worth without evidence/reasons? Nothing is the answer.

I gave you evidence and reasons why Froch was protected. The judges had the fight closer than everyone in the media, and the referee stopped the fight the first time Groves showed any signs of distress. Do you need a taped confession to convince you?

You also don't think there was anything su****ious about Ali-Liston II, and I'm guessing you'd feel the same way about the Kennedy assassination. If you choose to believe everything you see is legitimate that is your privilege. Hopefully you don't watch professional wrestling.

[Anthony342]

Or "sports entertainment" as it's now called.

[Humean]

I gave you evidence and reasons why Froch was protected. The judges had the fight closer than everyone in the media, and the referee stopped the fight the first time Groves showed any signs of distress. Do you need a taped confession to convince you?

You also don't think there was anything su****ious about Ali-Liston II, and I'm guessing you'd feel the same way about the Kennedy assassination. If you choose to believe everything you see is legitimate that is your privilege. Hopefully you don't watch professional wrestling.

Your evidence can be interpreted in many different ways, your way is actually the least likely. I don't need confessions, I just need some level of proof that there is a pattern of corruption in the sport at present. It should actually be very easy to catch it in todays climate, unlike in the past when there was definitely a lot of corruption of this sort. There seems to be no such evidence other than judges and referees not doing their jobs well, or simply making decisions and judging differently to how fight fans think they should be done.

I think the high quality footage shows Ali landed the punch in Ali-Liston II so that old canard should really be put to rest. If you believe in JFK conspiracy theories then I'm not surprised that you also think boxing is so corrupt.

[ShoulderRoll]

Humean probably thinks Don King gets a bad rap. After all, if he really did all the things he has gotten accused of then he would be guilty of fraud.

[Scott9945]

Your evidence can be interpreted in many different ways, your way is actually the least likely. I don't need confessions, I just need some level of proof that there is a pattern of corruption in the sport at present. It should actually be very easy to catch it in todays climate, unlike in the past when there was definitely a lot of corruption of this sort. There seems to be no such evidence other than judges and referees not doing their jobs well, or simply making decisions and judging differently to how fight fans think they should be done.

I think the high quality footage shows Ali landed the punch in Ali-Liston II so that old canard should really be put to rest. If you believe in JFK conspiracy theories then I'm not surprised that you also think boxing is so corrupt.

Well you need what you need, so there is no point in continuing this topic. The pattern and indications are definitely there if you view things realistically.

The footage of Ali-Liston II shows absolutely that a punch landed. Whether it was a legitimate KO punch is the debate. And good for you if you think some sap like Oswald killed the President of the United States unassisted with 3 shots in 5.5 seconds using a cheap manual bolt rifle.