Let's settle this with votes: Was Castillo robbed vs Mayweather?

[SUBZER0ED]

Imo, Castillo won the first fight, though it was close. Mayweather won the rematch clearly.

[4truth]

The judges got it right.

And, it has been my experience that most folks who go back and watch agree it was close but fair.

I think that this was the point of the poll. Most of us have gone back and seen this fight more than once. The results of this poll do not agree with your assessment.

[koolkc107]

I think that this was the point of the poll. Most of us have gone back and seen this fight more than once. The results of this poll do not agree with your assessment.

If you think this bolded is true, you and I comprehend things much differently.

My assessment is that Floyd won a clear but close fight.

But even if you think Castillo won, that doesn't make what happened "a robbery" like the poll and the OP are trying to say.

That, my friend, is the epitome of bias.

Get it?

[Diego Rodriguez]

Revisionism is defined as an attempt to re-interpret accepted historical record.

I think it is you that needs clarity on the term, since that is exactly what you are doing here- going as far as some poorly phrased poll to further that aim.

It isn't false to discuss the fight.

Again, what you need to do in such discussions is to cover EVERYTHING that may have gone wrong, not just the things you selectively want to point out in order to further your agenda or arrive at a pre-selected conclusion.

That is what you are doing here and it shows.

If you say George Washington was the first President that is a fact. If you say Floyd Mayweather's official record is undefeated that is also a fact. If you say George Washington should not have been the first President that is an opinion. If you say Mayweather should have lost against Castillo that is an opinion. There is nothing wrong with it.

BTW no one is re-interpreting history, the Castillo fight has been a controversial fight since day one. That is a fact. Implying or saying people talking about it are engaging in revisionist history is actually just that on your part. Why are you trying to hide the fact it was a controversial fight? That does not mean your opinion is any less valid.

I have absolutely no problem with those who agree or disagree with the decisions. I will always put up my reason ahead of my fandom. When you accuse others of engaging in revisionist history because they disagree with your opinion on who won a close fight you are more interested in fandom than reason.

[4truth]

If you think this bolded is true, you and I comprehend things much differently.

My assessment is that Floyd won a clear but close fight.

But even if you think Castillo won, that doesn't make what happened "a robbery" like the poll and the OP are trying to say.

That, my friend, is the epitome of bias.

Get it?

At what point is an unpopular decision robbery? 60/40? 75/25? 90/10? or does it not make any difference what most people believe they saw?

[koolkc107]

If you say George Washington was the first President that is a fact. If you say Floyd Mayweather's official record is undefeated that is also a fact. If you say George Washington should not have been the first President that is an opinion. If you say Mayweather should have lost against Castillo that is an opinion. There is nothing wrong with it.

BTW no one is re-interpreting history, the Castillo fight has been a controversial fight since day one. That is a fact. Implying or saying people talking about it are engaging in revisionist history is actually just that on your part. Why are you trying to hide the fact it was a controversial fight? That does not mean your opinion is any less valid.

I have absolutely no problem with those who agree or disagree with the decisions. I will always put up my reason ahead of my fandom. When you accuse others of engaging in revisionist history because they disagree with your opinion on who won a close fight you are more interested in fandom than reason.

You calling it a robbery reveals your bias.

It was a close fight Castillo found himself on the bad side of.

This despite being lucky enough not to have a legit knockdown counted as such AND facing a one handed Floyd to boot- two of several things you take care not to mention that would be plus side arguments for Mayweather.

You are starting out with a preconceived notion and using slanted opinion to co-sign it.

You are not searching for truth, just validation of your hurt feelings.

[Diego Rodriguez]

Again, you are being selective to further your point.

I have said I felt Jacobs won.

I have also said the fight was close enough that it shouldn't be called a robbery.

And, given that, it is clear GGG owes Jacobs a rematch that he is avoiding, probably because he himself realizes how close it was.

Hope that helps...

So what is different then when someone believes Castillo won the first fight against Floyd?

I did not call Castillo losing to FM a robbery BTW. That term requires a pretty high threshold for me to use. Even really bad decisions I do not call a robbery most of the time.

Come on you are one of the lil'g boys on this site. I know it and you do to. Avoiding Jacobs? I would say the probable reason he did not fight Jacobs again was because he had a massive payday with Canelo (which was his next fight). Does your disdain for Golovkin outweigh using some common sense? So he should have put millions of dollars on hold to fight Jacobs again instead of facing Canelo? Yeah that makes sense in no world.

[koolkc107]

At what point is an unpopular decision robbery? 60/40? 75/25? 90/10? or does it not make any difference what most people believe they saw?

A close fight by definition cannot be a robbery.

[Diego Rodriguez]

You calling it a robbery reveals your bias.

It was a close fight Castillo found himself on the bad side of.

This despite being lucky enough not to have a legit knockdown counted as such AND facing a one handed Floyd to boot- two of several things you take care not to mention that would be plus side arguments for Mayweather.

You are starting out with a preconceived notion and using slanted opinion to co-sign it.

You are not searching for truth, just validation of your hurt feelings.

The more you type the more you get exposed. I never said it was a robbery, in fact I just posted a second ago saying it wasn't. But clearly you got an agenda that doesn't allow you to read and respond. Your mind is already set on what I think because I am challenging your silly notion that anyone who thinks Floyd should have lost is engaging in revisionist history.

Floyd's official win may be controversial but one thing that is not is that you lost this argument.

[FrankieClutch]

It's tough to say this fight was a robbery. I had Castillo winning by a point