Tweet
)This is one of those Some A's are not B's therefore All A's are not B's logical fallacies.
-
Close doesn't mean robbery. But it also doesn't mean it wasn't a robbery. There's plenty of close fights that aren't viewed as robberies, but that doesn't preclude the existence of close fights that WERE robberies, nor does the existence of robberies that were on very wide margins. Heck, sometimes the right guy wins but it's still a robbery, such as the cards for Canelo v Bivol. Those cards were disgraceful, even if the right guy won.
This is one of those Some A's are not B's therefore All A's are not B's logical fallacies. -
Until we can get universal scoring, like every other sport has, this discussion will persist.
This way, we can see if close rds really are scored close and for whom.
We can also remove judges who show a bias towards certain styles.
A functioning scoring system is the only way to end these outcomes...or a 13th rd (to end draws).Comment
-
Teo got his ass kicked that fight.... I scored it a draw.
You were that twat that thought Loma beat Teofimo even though he failed to throw a meaningful punch in the first 6 rounds and nearly got knocked out in the 12th. No wonder you thought Haney fight was a robbery. Loma would have to get knocked out cold in the 12th and you would still call it a draw because he won most of the rounds prior
Comment
-
The TS also believed Loma beat Teo and Salido.
Lets just say his opinion is felatious.Comment
-
Seems videos no longer matter. No one is interested in proving it to themselves.Comment
-
The truth is clear for those with eyes to see. The ones wanting to justify the robbery just make baseless claims about the videos like "they probably didn't include all of Haney's punches." Or they claim that they rewatched it themselves, but somehow didn't see all the low blows and elbows to the face from Haney. I pulled several just from the Top Tank highlights reel. They also rely heavily on the "you need to win 7 clear rounds" argument, but never can provide any 7 clear rounds that Haney won. Then they pivot to "to be the champ you need to beat the champ" and pretend you have to beat the champ on a wide margin to "deserve" the win, as if that's not a load of crap, and the saying doesn't ONLY mean that the champ retains in the case of a tie.
People need to look back at Sugar Ray Leonard's career. He won as the challenger against Hagler on a controversial split. If you needed to win a wide decision, he shouldn't get credit for that win. Then, two fights later, he retained his belt against Hearns because the fight was a tie. THAT'S what the saying means.
Fact is, the vast majority of cards were 115-113 Loma, and that means that Loma clearly won a close fight. A close fight that can go anyone's way has cards split all over the place for both people, not a majority of viewers all saying that the wrong person won.
If 115-113 means "anyone could have won that fight, even though the overwhelming majority scored it the same way for one of the fighters", EVERY 115-113 scorecard is suspect and could have gone to the other fighter, no matter what happened in the fight. Every part of the "It wasn't a robbery" argument is flat out ******.
Comment
-
It was a pretty clear win. The couple of posters riding with Haney can say whatever they like but if it was a “could have gone either way” fight, more then next to nobody would have given it to Haney. Bob just screwed up like he did trying to force Bradley into being a star by gifting him a win over Manny who he thought was done. We all know who had the better career even from that point on. Bob is a snake, and somehow, for someone that’s been around forever, a very short sided one.Comment
Comment