Rulebook For Claiming Robbery

[Burner]

Some judges like a volume of punches compared to power/effectiveness of a few punches.

NOT a robbery, at all.

Thats the thing..**** what some judges like..Is it boxing or not???....

SOME judges like the one who had it for Hopkins knows how to score a fight...just because you throw alot of punches doesnt win you the fight.....

THIS IS PRIZE FIGHTING........You want the belt you have to take it...Hopkins controlled the fight and the pace.

He did whatever he wanted to do to Joe.

He clinched when he wanted to..He landed jabs...left hooks and right hand leads when he wanted to.

Workrate and Hopkins being 43 is the ONLY reason he won that fight and no one can tell me otherwise...

I watched the fight 8 times....

Its actually not boring to me..because I like boxing.....Hopkins won that fight.

[JcourT]

Thank you for this thread...So many people say close fights are a "robbery" when in reality it is far from one

[Addison]

Since everyone seems to think that every close fight is a robbery (and blatantly incorrectly so), I figured I would put a rulebook together to let everyone know when to use the word and when not to. Just a reminder to everyone that robbery means that someone intentionally took the fight away from the winner. That means a robbery cannot be based on someone being an idiot and not knowing how to effectively judge. The argument "Harold Lederman" can't score for ****, is not an effective defense for claiming robbery.

1. The fighter who is "robbed" has to win at least 7 rounds beyond any doubt whatsoever (barring any knockdowns or point deductions). These rounds that are won beyond any certainty are going to be called "lock rounds". This means that if there is any argument whatsoever that a certain fighter won the round at all, then it can't be used as a lock round.

2. You cannot watch and score the fight in question on sopcast. You need to have an actual, clear, unobstructed view of the fight to make such a bold statement.

3. Harold Lederman cannot agree with the judging panel if it is a robbery. Since the judging panel would need to intentionally take the fight away from a fighter, they would obviously be motivated against that person. Why the **** would Harold Lederman be motivated to rob someone when his scorecard doesn't mean anything? This also rings true for Showtime's press row scoring.

4. You have to have seen all 3 minutes of all 12 rounds in order to make a call on whether it is a robbery or not. For all you know, the 8th round that you missed was a 10-8 round against the guy you thought won. No judging may be made based on highlight videos either.

5. A knockdown is not an automatic victory. Just because one fighter got their ass kicked for one of the 12 rounds does not mean that they automatically lose the fight. Saying "How could Pacquiao lose? Did you see what he did to Marquez in the first round?" makes you an idiot. A 10-6 round can easily be negated by 4 10-9 rounds the other way. That would give a score of 46-46, and there are still 7 rounds to go.

With that said, quit ****ing calling every fight a robbery. Pavlik-Taylor II was not a robbery. Calzaghe-Hopkins was not a robbery. Casamayor-Santa Cruz was a robbery. See the difference?

You should read what blackirish wrote, DW421. This is a little dramatic. ^

Who has been talking about "robbery" in regards to some of these fights anyway?? People have been saying they thought a different party won, but robbery? Drama, dude.

Nobody should complain about a decision unless they have a specific criteria for their argument. Simple fact.

Judges are not Jesus and the Apostles, Dwiens. They **** up royally on a constant basis, my friend. Try not to take them too seriously. As referred to during the Jones/Trinidad fight during the first 2/3 of the bout; Harold Lederman had scored almost every single round for Trinidad. Kellerman respectfully disagreed with his scoring, and Lampley referred to a previous fight where Harold and Julie Lederman were 8 rounds apart. They all emphasized tremendously how subjective scoring can be. A judges score is not in the case of a close fight the word of God on one hand, and then a robbery on the other, when there is clearly a ****up taking place. No need for drama..

[Scott9945]

Thats the thing..**** what some judges like..Is it boxing or not???....

SOME judges like the one who had it for Hopkins knows how to score a fight...just because you throw alot of punches doesnt win you the fight.....

THIS IS PRIZE FIGHTING........You want the belt you have to take it...Hopkins controlled the fight and the pace.

He did whatever he wanted to do to Joe.

He clinched when he wanted to..He landed jabs...left hooks and right hand leads when he wanted to.

Workrate and Hopkins being 43 is the ONLY reason he won that fight and no one can tell me otherwise...

I watched the fight 8 times....

Its actually not boring to me..because I like boxing.....Hopkins won that fight.

I didn't see Hopkins do **** in that fight after the first round, other than trying to frustrate Calzaghe and stink up the fight. That was a poor excuse for offense from a world champion. I didn't even think it was that close and I didn't bet on it or really care that much about either fighter.

Also to win the belt all you have to do is have more points than the champion at the end of the fight. That is the reality of it. The "take the crown from the champ" crap is a boxing myth.

[Fox McCloud]

Thats the thing..**** what some judges like..Is it boxing or not???....

SOME judges like the one who had it for Hopkins knows how to score a fight...just because you throw alot of punches doesnt win you the fight.....

THIS IS PRIZE FIGHTING........You want the belt you have to take it...Hopkins controlled the fight and the pace.

He did whatever he wanted to do to Joe.

He clinched when he wanted to..He landed jabs...left hooks and right hand leads when he wanted to.

Workrate and Hopkins being 43 is the ONLY reason he won that fight and no one can tell me otherwise...

I watched the fight 8 times....

Its actually not boring to me..because I like boxing.....Hopkins won that fight.

Once again:

Bad decision? Maybe. Robbery? No.

Robbery is a concentrated effort to give the fight to a certain fighter, regardless of what happens in the ring.

You should read what blackirish wrote, DW421. This is a little dramatic. ^

Who has been talking about "robbery" in regards to some of these fights anyway?? People have been saying they thought a different party won, but robbery? Drama, dude.

Nobody should complain about a decision unless they have a specific criteria for their argument. Simple fact.

Judges are not Jesus and the Apostles, Dwiens. They **** up royally on a constant basis, my friend. Try not to take them too seriously. As referred to during the Jones/Trinidad fight during the first 2/3 of the bout; Harold Lederman had scored almost every single round for Trinidad. Kellerman respectfully disagreed with his scoring, and Lampley referred to a previous fight where Harold and Julie Lederman were 8 rounds apart. They all emphasized tremendously how subjective scoring can be. A judges score is not in the case of a close fight the word of God on one hand, and then a robbery on the other, when there is clearly a ****up taking place. No need for drama..

Remember, I'm not complaining about people claiming bad decision. That is perfectly fine. But robbery and ducking are two words that piss me off, because they are used so frequently and incorrectly. "Pacquiao ducking Guzman!" Uhhh, no, he's not. He's fighting another dangerous fighter in David Diaz, and there is really no clear reason why Guzman is more deserving than Diaz.

And you haven't seen people claim robbery often? Have you logged on here right after an HBO WCB broadcast? 35 threads about Jermain Taylor being robbed. 23 threads about the judges robbing Bernard Hopkins.

"OMFG Castillo robbed against Mayweather!" is STILL (for some ****ing reason) a hot topic on here.

People need to stop overexaggerating everything on here, and this is the thing that I see overexaggerated the most.

[Burner]

Once again:

Bad decision? Maybe. Robbery? No.

Robbery is a concentrated effort to give the fight to a certain fighter, regardless of what happens in the ring.



Remember, I'm not complaining about people claiming bad decision. That is perfectly fine. But robbery and ducking are two words that piss me off, because they are used so frequently and incorrectly. "Pacquiao ducking Guzman!" Uhhh, no, he's not. He's fighting another dangerous fighter in David Diaz, and there is really no clear reason why Guzman is more deserving than Diaz.

And you haven't seen people claim robbery often? Have you logged on here right after an HBO WCB broadcast? 35 threads about Jermain Taylor being robbed. 23 threads about the judges robbing Bernard Hopkins.

"OMFG Castillo robbed against Mayweather!" is STILL (for some ****ing reason) a hot topic on here.

People need to stop overexaggerating everything on here, and this is the thing that I see overexaggerated the most.

The only thing I personally called robbery on lately.....

was that Urango fight...The cassamayor fight....Quartey-Forrest..and Hops-Calzaghe.

[Addison]

Once again:

Bad decision? Maybe. Robbery? No.

Robbery is a concentrated effort to give the fight to a certain fighter, regardless of what happens in the ring.



Remember, I'm not complaining about people claiming bad decision. That is perfectly fine. But robbery and ducking are two words that piss me off, because they are used so frequently and incorrectly. "Pacquiao ducking Guzman!" Uhhh, no, he's not. He's fighting another dangerous fighter in David Diaz, and there is really no clear reason why Guzman is more deserving than Diaz.

And you haven't seen people claim robbery often? Have you logged on here right after an HBO WCB broadcast? 35 threads about Jermain Taylor being robbed. 23 threads about the judges robbing Bernard Hopkins.

"OMFG Castillo robbed against Mayweather!" is STILL (for some ****ing reason) a hot topic on here.

People need to stop overexaggerating everything on here, and this is the thing that I see overexaggerated the most.

Complaining about the claiming robbery issue isn't exactly new either.

[Fox McCloud]

The only thing I personally called robbery on lately.....

was that Urango fight...The cassamayor fight....Quartey-Forrest..and Hops-Calzaghe.

Your list of robberies reminds me of a preschooler's exercise titled, "Which one of these is not like the others?"

I agree with Casamayor and Forrest. I haven't seen the Urango fight, but I have heard nothing but claims that it was a robbery, even from some people that I deeply respect.

Lederman scored the fight for Hopkins, doesn't that make it not a robbery? I certainly think so, because Lederman has **** to gain from "robbing" a fighter with his unofficial scorecard. I just can't imagine how people think that Hopkins was robbed. He didn't win very many rounds so convincingly that Calzaghe getting the nod in that round would have been absurd.

[Fox McCloud]

Complaining about the claiming robbery issue isn't exactly new either.

I haven't seen it at all, but I am still am somewhat new here. Even so, it's been a while since it's happened.

[Addison]

Thats the thing..**** what some judges like..Is it boxing or not???....

SOME judges like the one who had it for Hopkins knows how to score a fight...just because you throw alot of punches doesnt win you the fight.....

THIS IS PRIZE FIGHTING........You want the belt you have to take it...Hopkins controlled the fight and the pace.

He did whatever he wanted to do to Joe.

He clinched when he wanted to..He landed jabs...left hooks and right hand leads when he wanted to.

Workrate and Hopkins being 43 is the ONLY reason he won that fight and no one can tell me otherwise...

I watched the fight 8 times....

Its actually not boring to me..because I like boxing.....Hopkins won that fight.

I hear you, Burner.. Last thing I will say about this fight for now is this; besides these points you see made here ^ the biggest problem for people who had trouble scoring rounds for Calzaghe was that he wasn't landing anything for the most part. We're not just talking about the basic issue of activity on Calzaghe's part, or clean scores on the part of Hopkins - Calzaghe simply was not making contact with his intended target throughout. End of ****ing story.