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

[koolkc107]

So anyone saying Haglar won is engaging in revisionist history. How about Whitaker vs. Chavez? Because you comment on a post does not mean you agree with the initial poster or their entire premise. I have stated CLEARLY I do not think it was a robbery. If you cannot deal with individual posters then that is your problem.

No you clearly do not understand what the term means if you are using it in this context. The revisionist history is you implying there is nothing to discuss. The fight was open to discussion from day one. Revisionist history would be bringing up some random Floyd fight where it was never a question if he won and then making a big stink about it. There is no revisionist history about the FM vs. Castillo I fight. It was controversial from the moment the cards were read to today. Implying it was not or should not be discussed is revisionist history (what you are in fact trying to do).

Knowing the definition and knowing when it applies are not the same thing. You clearly do not understand how to apply the term.

Again, it is only revisionism if you are saying or supporting the word "robbery" as any kind of accurate representation.

Saying you thought the other guy won is fine. Saying it was close is fine. But, by definition that isn't a robbery.

You are supporting an OP that says robbery.

See the difference?

Probably not...

[Diego Rodriguez]

i dont know but in fairness to floyd he got straight back in there with castillo

Agree.

Now to point out he was also pretty unknown at that point in his career (beyond boxing fans). There was no huge money fight lined up. Just pointing that out when the inevitable comparisons are made.

[Diego Rodriguez]

Again, it is only revisionism if you are saying or supporting the word "robbery" as any kind of accurate representation.

Saying you though the other guy won is fine. Saying it was close is fine. But, by definition that isn't a robbery.

You are supporting an OP that says robbery.

See the difference?

Probably not...

Okay let's concede this, you are specifically talking about revisionist history because he used the word robbery. I am not supporting the term, I have stated this numerous times now.

[Diego Rodriguez]

You wanna say controversial then say that.

You use robbery, that's revisionism.

When folks discuss SRL/Hagler, most know it was close.

When folks discuss Whitaker/Chavez, most know it was an awful card.

But, most folks avoid the word robbery in those old fights and rightly so.

And objective folks mention everything, not just the things that further the point they want to make.

Most people I know use the word robbery for Whitaker/Chavez, and they are right IMO.

Also people use robbery often like great. They use it way to easy as I see it. It depends on the threshold they use for the word. Some simply use it when they think the decision was really bad. What I may simply say was a really bad decision they call it a robbery. Not sure on the OP just something I have noticed in other cases.

[koolkc107]

Most people I know use the word robbery for Whitaker/Chavez, and they are right IMO.

Also people use robbery often like great. They use it way to easy as I see it. It depends on the threshold they use for the word. Some simply use it when they think the decision was really bad. What I may simply say was a really bad decision they call it a robbery. Not sure on the OP just something I have noticed in other cases.

I was watching Chavez vs Whitaker as it happened. And honestly, when they announced the verdict, AT THE TIME, the word robbery escaped my lips several times.

But, when I went back to watch it again, I realized how a judge could use the scoring criteria to have that fight very, very close.

And I stopped using that word.

Still think it was an awful call tho.

[saopaulo]

arum clearly paid off the judges. jlc won plain and simple. there was a plan in place to keep floyds record unblemished. just accept it floyd d-ick riders and move on. losing is part of sports

[djtmal]

I thought Floyd got outpointed

[djtmal]

Never seen this asked before.

Go search the archives it's not your first time for your boy.

[Kuyukut]

Remember when in the 2nd fight Maidana knocked his tooth out

yup, luckily for fraud jr he got kenny bayless on his payroll or else fraud jr loses the 2nd fight as well.

[Damn Wicked]

That is your way of scoring a fight and not mine. I give the round to the boxer who lands more and better punches. I don't score rounds for the boxer who made him miss unless he made him pay with more punches. In other words landed punches count for you but missed punches don't count against you. If they did then Clottey beat Pacquiao without throwing many punches because he blocked and slipped so many punches. Never mind that Pacquiao threw and landed many more punches. If missing punches really cost you points high volume punchers would be afraid to let their hands go for fear of missing punches and losing points. Boxing is scored by punches landed not punches blocked or slipped. Making punches miss is it's own reward because you didn't get hit. Mayweather did get hit a lot by Castillo. If you are kidding or being sarcastic that's different.

He's definitely being sarcastic.