What is your definition of the following terms...

**bluebeam** · 06-08-2018, 06:53 AM

a robbery was lara vs Williams

a duck is AJ turning down the biggest purse in heavyweight history

exposed is when maidana beat up broner

**boliodogs** · 06-08-2018, 01:29 PM

A robbery to me is a fight I thought a boxer clearly won by at least 4 points and instead he loses the fight. I thought Pacquiao beat Horn by at least 116 to 112 and probably 117 to 111 but officially he lost and one judge had it 117 to 111 for Horn. I thought it was a robbery.If I thought a boxer won by 3 points but he lost I call that a poor decision but not a robbery. That is just an example. There have been many robberies much worse than that. Exposed is when a boxer is shown to be not nearly as good as many thought he was and said he was. Big underdog Maidana exposed Broner as being nowhere near as good as many said he was. I think only a champion can be guilty of a duck. A champion has an obligation to fight worthy challengers or other champions in his weight class. If a boxer is not a champion they have no such obligation. If a champion continually turns down good money offers to fight a top contender or a fellow champion he could be accused of ducking. However he doesn't have to fight all the best guys one after another. He can take an easier fight now and then without being a ducker. All champions take an easy title defense now and then. I don't think not accepting the challenge of a boxer from a heavier weight class is ever a duck. The champion only has to fight the best in his own weight class and not any weight classes above his weight class.

**Madison Boxing** · 06-08-2018, 01:34 PM

robbery- ward kovalev 1
duck- gervonta davis ducking lomachenko
exposed- maidana smashing broner

**McNulty** · 06-08-2018, 01:38 PM

Originally posted by P.K Dionysus

Robbery:

A closely contested fight in which close rounds can be scored for either fighter going the way of a certain fighter is NOT a ****ing robbery. The way some people on here act, if a fighter they favour does not lose via 1st round death, then it's a damn robbery.

There is very rarely a situation where a round could be scored for either fighter if you're really good at scoring. To take a quick guess, I would say less than 5% of the time --- maybe 10%.

Very rarely do I find rounds that could have gone either way. The problem is most people just don't know how to score and thats that. What I do is score the round even if I can't decide. I think there should be more of that, but for that to happen we need competent judges and less corruption.

**mlac** · 06-08-2018, 01:41 PM

robbery - a close fight can still be a robbery, there are alot of 7-5 type fights where there is a clear winner but they score it the other way or a draw. a perfect example is kovalev v ward 1

Duck- Bowe throwing his belt in the trash in order to avoid Lennox.

exposed - seth mitchell v jonothan banks

**Joe Beamish** · 06-08-2018, 01:42 PM

A robbery is when nearly everyone (with a brain) agrees the wrong fighter won on the cards.
-- Pacquaio-Bradley was a robbery
-- Ward/Kovalev was NOT a robbery (even though I thought Kovalev won)

Exposed is when a fighter has been proven to be less awesome than he (and others) thought he was
-- Broner was exposed, as mentioned above, by Maidana
-- GGG was not exposed by Jacobs or anyone else

A duck is when ALL signs pointed to a particular fight happening, but a fighter never followed through
-- Bowe didn't fight Lewis. That's a definite duck.
-- Floyd didn't fight Margarito. Not a duck, for plenty of reasons

**Tony Trick-Pony** · 06-08-2018, 02:10 PM

Originally posted by P.K Dionysus

(a) Robbery.
(b) Exposed.
(c) Duck.

These three terms are amongst the most overused and misused terms on this site, and I'm curious to see what some of y'all on here define these words as, or at the very least, what constitutes each or all of them.

On my part, I will reveal what I feel does NOT constitute them in my opinion.

Robbery:

A closely contested fight in which close rounds can be scored for either fighter going the way of a certain fighter is NOT a ****ing robbery. The way some people on here act, if a fighter they favour does not lose via 1st round death, then it's a damn robbery.

Exposed:

When a fighter steps up in competition and suddenly stops scoring numerous knock downs and no longer blows his opponents out of the ring, that dude hasn't been "exposed", he has just moved up to a different level. A fighter being exposed in my opinion is when that step up is made, and they lose badly, or lose repeatedly. Even then, what ends up being "exposed" or revealed is that they aren't as good as they appeared to be, not that they suck balls.

Duck:

Well, ****. This is a little more complicated because let's be honest, boxing is filled with mad political maneuvering and ****, so we can't just claim two fighters not meeting in the ring is down to ducking. To me at least, fighters making excuses or changing the subject or saying one thing then doing some other **** is ducking. Imo, Santa Cruz and Frampton ducked Rigo, for example.

Anyway, what constitutes a Robbery, a fighter being exposed, or a duck to y'all? Also, feel free to cite examples to support your opinions.

Discuss below if you so choose

Great thread, brother.

A robbery to me is when the scores are blatantly in favor of one guy when a fight was close according to most who watched it. It doesn't tell the story and clearly a judge was either paid off or is blind or just incompetent. When a fight is close and the guy many though won doesn't get it, it's not a big deal. Many times in fights, lots of rounds can go either way. It happens. Definitely not a robbery.

Exposed is simply when a guy has been spoon fed his whole career and steps and up and gets beaten in a dominant embarrassing way. It's more about perception by fans and others about how good he is before he proves it against a quality opponent and then losing in a way that shows a lot of lacking, usual in multiple areas.

As far as ducking, I have no idea what happens outside the ring with these guys and all the negotiations and yada yada. I can't keep up with all that noise, but as for definition, I'd say when a guy just flat-out will not fight an opponent for whatever reason. No amount of money will get him in there. However, I don't think this happens too often.

**Curt Henning** · 06-08-2018, 02:14 PM

robbery-froch/dirrell
exposed-bhop/pavlik
duck-lil g/ward aj/wilder

just real quick off top of my head

**pillowfists98** · 06-08-2018, 03:28 PM

Robbery: Helenius/Chisora, Briggs/Foreman, Lara/Williams. Not Robbery: Pacquiao/Marquez II or III, Hagler/Leonard, Ward/Kovalev I.
Exposed: Tony Thompson exposed David Price. Maidana exposed Ortiz and Broner. Not exposed: Linares did not "expose" Loma because he knocked him down. Rungvisai didnt expose Chocolatito.
Duck: Lewis ducked the Klitschko rematch. He agreed to face Vitali again but changed his mind. Khan has been ducking Kell Brook for years. Not a duck: Mayweather did not duck Khan or Paul Williams. Whyte is not ducking Pulev by fighting Parker instead.

What is your definition of the following terms...