Rulebook For Claiming Robbery

[warp1432]

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?

There's an exeception to this rule, when an blatny obvious round like rounds 4 and 12 in the Glen Johnson-Chad Dawson fight are scored for Chad Dawson that screams fishy anyway.

Or like the one judge crossing out the names/asking which fighter is which IN THE 11TH ROUND.

I'm against calling close fight robberies, but Dawson Johnson just might have been one.

[daggum]

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.

another compubox victim

[daggum]

There's an exeception to this rule, when an blatny obvious round like rounds 4 and 12 in the Glen Johnson-Chad Dawson fight are scored for Chad Dawson that screams fishy anyway.

Or like the one judge crossing out the names/asking which fighter is which IN THE 11TH ROUND.

I'm against calling close fight robberies, but Dawson Johnson just might have been one.

in pac-marquez 2, 2 of the judges gave the 6th to pac when marquez absolutely dominated the round. ah well 1 round doesnt matter i mean theres 12 of them after all right who cares. BOINK

[BennyST]

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?

Good stuff as usual Mr Dwiens. The only problem with this particular topic is people are just plain ****** and no matter what happens in any fight you will always get that minority of folk who can't see the forrest from the trees. Whether a person believes someone was robbed is basically due to their, generally absurd, view of desperately liking one fighter or, vice versa, hating one.

I think there should be a sticky in the Trading Block or something of fights that are most definitely robberies and that they should be used as a yardstick so that whenever some douche bag starts claiming "Robbery!", we can point to one of those fights and say, "This is a robbery, not that close fight."

I think it's basically just fashionable to cry robbery now as well. I mean, it seems that people will go to any lengths to discredit a fighter that should not be good but is, or got a great win over someone they should not have. It's a sad situation but I don't think it will change very soon. Though this is a good start to try.

[Mr. Ryan]

Most of the people who call a fight a robbery have the so-called "robbed" fighter in their avatars.

[Easy-E]

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?

Well if you are an idiot and dont know how to score a fight and score it for the wrong guy you are still robbing the person who deserved the decision of a victory.

[Gareth Ivanovic]

Yeah it gets annoying hearing people claim robbery on close fights. At this point though it's pretty much expected that if there is a close fight a few people will be claiming robbery. It's usually because either they hate the guy that was given the victory or their fighter lost.

[Fox McCloud]

Well if you are an idiot and dont know how to score a fight and score it for the wrong guy you are still robbing the person who deserved the decision of a victory.

Do you honestly think the guy who scored the first round of Marquez-Pacquiao I 10-7 "robbed" Pacquaio? That was clearly a mistake. Robbery implies that there was an actual plot to make one guy win, regardless of what happened in the fight.

[AntonTheMeh]

theres been alot of close fights recently.but to call them robberies is a little over the top.most of these"close fights"weren't landlside by any means.usually the more effective fighter wins.

[x-PeROxiDE-x]

Hopkins vs. Calzaghe was a robberry.

Something needs to be said for the myth of the 232 punches landed bull****...that pitty pat ****ty...arm punches...rabbitt puches...ugh makes me sick to be a fan.

Then do us all a favour, stop watching boxing and **** off, you have no credibility or respect from anybody worthwhile on this forum.