Is it OK To Give Fighters Credit On Their Resume When robbed?

[TheHayeMaker]

No .. but some robberies

were over exaggerated

Sturm did win against Oscar. but it was much much closer then people say

[The Guillotine]

the problem with that is; half of boxing ******s can't tell the difference between a close fight and a robbery

[shade darkar]

only when they are robbed not when it was close.

i thought marquez beat pacquiao as did alot of other people but it was too close to be a robbery.

but abril has a win over rios in my opinion.

And Lara schooled williams and i count that as a win for lara.

[BennyST]

I'd have to say no, you can't. There is a lot of robberies in boxing and it sucks but you can't just go changing history like that. What you might consider a robbery, another person might consider a close fight. You can't change the record books, so don't bother.

So you're saying that despite a fighter winning a fight easily, he shouldn't be thought of as better because of behind-closed-doors-corruption?

History was changed when they decided before the fight who was going to win. That right there is changing history by making sure no matter what happens, only one guy wins. We can't change the record books, but it sure doesn't mean we should just let them all go and accept what are disgraceful non-boxing related wins. You're missing the point that the record books were changed to suit some greedy old ****s before the fight even takes place so we most definitely should be the ones that keep the true score of a fight alive.

We should not give credit to fighters if they simply didn't win a fight. Why would you? They didn't win, so they don't deserve to be called winners whatever the record book says. Your apathy toward this is one of the very reasons it keeps taking place.

To not give them credit is utterly absurd. If they won the fight, they are better and deserve the credit for it. So what if some corrupt judges and promoters make sure only one guy wins. That's not the point of the sport and to think otherwise is ridiculous in the extreme.

[IMDAZED]

Boxing is too subjective to do that. There are some instances where it's clear as day. But in a close battle? Ehh. Case by case basis.

[BennyST]

Castillo gets credit for beating floyd in the first fight, and witaker gets credit for beating Chavez.

So Castillo gets credit for beating but, let me guess, Marquez definitely doesn't for beating Pac as clearly?

You're such a ****ing blind fool mate, and no matter what delusions you come up with you'll never even realise people just laugh at the **** you write here on a daily basis.

[#1Assassin]

i go on what i see. if i think someone is robbed i give them full credit. if i have a fighter winning by a single point i recognize the margins are so slim it couldve gon either way though.

for example i think dawson was the first fighter to beat hopkins since RJJ, thats how i look at it when i evaluate his legacy regardless of what the official judges say.

[IMDAZED]

i go on what i see. if i think someone is robbed i give them full credit. if i have a fighter winning by a single point i recognize the margins are so slim it couldve gon either way though.

for example i think dawson was the first fighter to beat hopkins since RJJ, thats how i look at it when i evaluate his legacy regardless of what the official judges say.

Yeah this is what makes boxing so hard. I had Hopkins-Taylor I, 9-3 or 8-4 for Hopkins. I mean, I didn't think it was close at all. But what do you do?

[#1Assassin]

Yeah this is what makes boxing so hard. I had Hopkins-Taylor I, 9-3 or 8-4 for Hopkins. I mean, I didn't think it was close at all. But what do you do?

exactly. the hbo crew were just all over JTs nuts, there were instances when he missed shots badly and they said he landed. even more times when hopkins did land and they ignored it, lampley in particular. alot of fans score with their ears and get affected, or they just dont know how to score period.

then again boxing is open for interpretation. same thing goes for how good a fighter is and how much credit someone else deserves for beating them. evryone has their own opinion. what do you do indeed.

[IMDAZED]

exactly. the hbo crew were just all over JTs nuts, there were instances when he missed shots badly and they said he landed. even more times when hopkins did land and they ignored it, lampley in particular. alot of fans score with their ears and get affected, or they just dont know how to score period.

then again boxing is open for interpretation. same thing goes for how good a fighter is and how much credit someone else deserves for beating them. evryone has their own opinion. what do you do indeed.

I think in that particular bout the fans were definitely influenced by the announcing crew--not to mention Hopkins isn't the most liked fighter. But I thought he dominated Taylor. That fight is still a mystery to me.