We need to get the it was close so not a roberry thing out of our mentality

[PRINCE O' PROSE]

Nah.


There are certain exceptions (like last night, where it's hard to see how Matthyse didn't win at very least 5 rounds), but, as a rule, we don't want to see the word "robbery" thrown around over close fights.


In a close one, if anything hints at shady goings on, it's the consistency and credibility of the judges' scores, not one guy getting the nod over the other.

[iPhoneKiller]

Yes I agree that swing rounds were at Macklin and Sturm, but I am not sure Sturm won 4 more rounds than Macklin. Why? Well the rounds Macklin won were all similar, he took a few hard shots but out worked. Now if you have four winning rounds like that, then for sure he had at least 2 the same.

As for the judges angles, I agree. I have watched live fights from further, and yes it's not as good as TV, but I don't believe my scoring is different when I watch it on TV.

It is most sad that combat sports do have fights that shouldn't be scored how they are. Some work so damn hard for the opportunity.

It's easy for us to say it wasn't a roberry, but to the fighter, it's money in his next fight, some need it badly.

[iPhoneKiller]

Bump, how can Burner say it wasn't a roberry because he scored it 95-94...

To Matthyse.

If the rounds are clear, one round is all you need

[bojangles1987]

It's a robbery because there's no way you can say Lucas didn't win 5 rounds. There's just no way. So even though it's close, it's still a robbery because a guy won who has no case for doing so.