Rulebook For Claiming Robbery

[Addison]

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.

There are plenty of new of new people so maybe it's worth saying again.

[Fox McCloud]

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.

Those punch stat numbers for Calzaghe were about as absurd as I have seen from compubox. Mayweather against De La Hoya was the only one that was that exaggerated.

Hopkins did stop landing super effective shot in the earlier rounds, so Joe was able to win rounds just by landing a lot of ineffective blows. I know a lot of them missed, but that's the beauty of throwing so many punches. A lot miss, and a lot land.

I'm not arguing with your card. I know I'm not going to convince you that Calzaghe won, and I don't want to. This is precisely the reason that I have issue with this fight being called a robbery. There are good arguments for both fighters that they won the fight.

[Fox McCloud]

There are plenty of new of new people so maybe it's worth saying again.

There are even some people on here that I really respect that have done this at one point.

Gunstar, who I like and respect quite a bit, made a thread entitled "Highway Robbery" right after Pavlik-Taylor II. I mean, seriously, does anyone actually think they stole what was rightfully Jermain's? Or could it be that there are judges who actually favor activity and lots of partially landed punches over, clear, concise, economical performances?

[MissDeeCole]

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?

Id rep you again but it wont let me

[Fox McCloud]

Just a reminder, because I heard something about a robbery in Germany.

[-Antonio-]

[QUOTE=Burner;3410505]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.[/QUOTE

What did you score the Quintana/Williams fight?

[majestiC]

people need to remember its a boxing fight not a fight that u see on the street, Calzaghe landed more punches in every single round vs Hopkins, how the **** can you say Hopkins won? so what if he landed the harder punches that came once a round. People seem to get muddled up between boxing and prizefighting, boxing you score points no matter how hard you hit them even some judges and journalists need to learn this to.

[The Hammer]

One rule should obviously be:

Never claim a fight was a robbery unless you've actually seen it, never because you've heard or read about it somewhere.

Of course everybody should already know that, but there are people who look at close results from Germany or Britain and jump to conclusions!

[Scott9945]

One rule should obviously be:

Never claim a fight was a robbery unless you've actually seen it, never because you've heard or read about it somewhere.

Of course everybody should already know that, but there are people who look at close results from Germany or Britain and jump to conclusions!

That really should go without saying. But then again you read the craziest stuff here. There are some movies I wouldn't watch at gunpoint, but I'm not going to say for a fact that they were bad if I never even saw it.

[Fox McCloud]

One rule should obviously be:

Never claim a fight was a robbery unless you've actually seen it, never because you've heard or read about it somewhere.

Of course everybody should already know that, but there are people who look at close results from Germany or Britain and jump to conclusions!

You didn't bother to read the opening post, did you Tunney?

Rule #4.