How come when someone wins a close fight on boxingscene its considered robbery?

[ßringer]

That was sad Cruz was definitely robbed in that one, I remember watching it and getting really pissed since Casamayor shouldn't even have been fighting Katsidis in the first place. I believe Cruz went on to get KO'd too for lower paychecks while Casamayor got bigger paychecks he didn't earn in the ring. Nothing was close about Cruz/Casamayor.

It was ridiculous, man.

Santa Cruz beat 'Casa's ass that night. And that's coming from a genuine fan of Casamayor's work ; I really think that dude is underrated.

But it's really ridiculous when you have fights like that, that were such blatant, outright robberies. And then people on here spend more time talking about 115-113 type close fights that really weren't robberies at all.

It makes me wonder if half this board has A.D.D. or some ****.

I gotta score that fight at some point...I watched it on and off and it looked to me like after the first 3-5 rounds Paulie was giving him a boxing lesson...idk how Diaz could of won that fight...I jus don't see it...

Maybe you should actually watch it all the way, before you comment on who you thought won?

Just a thought, my man.

Don't get me wrong ; I had Paulie up by 2 points. But Diaz was putting in a lot of work himself, and it was in no way at all a case for any claim of a "robbery".

And that's coming from a certified Juan Diaz hater. I damn near **********d when Marquez landed that uppercut on him and he went down like a sack of ****.

[ßringer]

so won against pac vs marquez 2?

That wasn't a robbery, either.

I had Marquez winning it by a thin margin, but Manny did his work and scored that KD, and that's what sealed my boy Juan Manuel's fate.

Could've easily been another draw, just like the first fight.

[2fast2strong423]

one of the worst robberies i seen was oqeundo vs. byrd

[Dambala]

Well in some cases it seems that the judges use a very subjective standard to score a fight(Cotto/Clottey,Dawson,Johnson I,Dirrell/Froch) and in other cases are plain robberies(Diaz/Malignaggi,Cassamayor/Santa-Cruz,John/Juarez I).But most of the times people complain about some fights that could've gone either way.

[Dambala]

That wasn't a robbery, either.

I had Marquez winning it by a thin margin, but Manny did his work and scored that KD, and that's what sealed my boy Juan Manuel's fate.

Could've easily been another draw, just like the first fight.

That's the way I see it too, Marquez deserved the win but it wasn't a robbery.

[ßringer]

That's the way I see it too, Marquez deserved the win but it wasn't a robbery.

Respect.

I'm about as big a Marquez nuthugger as they come. But that fight was as close as they come, I can't argue with the decision. I'd expect the same from pac fans if the decision had went the other way.

[The Gambler1981]

Scoring fights is very subjective under the best of circumstances so scores can be widely different. Most people seem to not be able to understand that some rounds are pretty close and could go either way.

Most people also could not score a fight properly to save their life you have to be able to look past bias toward a fighter or style and decide who is the more effective fighter on a round by round basis.

The only fight this year I have a real issue with the scoring is Froch-Dirrell and I would not exactly call it a robbery even though I don't see how Froch won more then four rounds because Dirrell did not do enough to really seperate himself even though to me he was always landing the better blows.

[Freddy Krueger]

Do you guys think we get the better viewpoint to score the fight then the judges do? I think so, I think we see stuff on camera the judges don't see from certain spots of the ring. That is another reason sometimes judges have horrible score-cards.

But then again sometimes the judges seem to be paid off... But who knows, maybe they see a totally different fight from their viewpoint.

[Dambala]

BTW Doug Tucker is the worst judge ever!

[The Gambler1981]

Judges do see a totally different fight, on TV you get a bunch of different angle while judges are real close they only get their eyes and depending on where the action is taking place you can't catch everything from one angle.

Another thing that is different is the influence live on a judge are different from TV; live seeing the sweat/blood fly, the crowd roar, the sound of the punches landing while on TV you have the announcers, slo mo replay, punch stats, the "unoffical" scorecards.