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

[KO MX]

Yeah cause that'll settle it once and for all

Once and for all he said, lets send this thread link to Nevada Athletic Comission, they need to change the result asap

[koolkc107]

What is revisionist about discussing a fight? You sound a little sensitive. I know plenty of people who watched that fight and thought he lost. I also know some who thought Floyd won.

This BS line says it all "I don't know anyone that scores fights they way they should be scored that can end up with Castillo winning." Talk about an agenda.

IMO it was the only fight Floyd lost. Some of the fights that were close supposedly weren't that close IMO. Said my piece in the post above.

The records book has him as undefeated so be happy with that. I always make my own determination if I have seen a fight who the winner was. That is not revisionist history that is simply having an opinion.

It's revisionist history coming from a place that NEEDS to conclude that an undefeated great actually lost.

It's false, self serving and unrealistic- and that's putting it nicely.

The line you call BS is simple really.

There are 4 scoring criteria. If you use them to score that fight and are objective, you can't possibly have Castillo winning. He was aggressive but effective less than half the time; his defense was not better; his ring generalship left a lot to be desired; and lastly, he landed a lot of things that were neither clean nor effective.

Again, if you are trying to revisit and revise history, then you need to include EVERYTHING that wasn't scored correctly, not just things you cherry pick. And if you score the knockdown as it should have been scored, and score the round that Castillo had a point deduction correctly, it is clear the fight was a bit more lopsided than the judges had it.

Just remember, all judges saw the first 4 rounds for Floyd. Throw in the extra point for the KD, and that is pretty much an insurmountable lead.

[Diego Rodriguez]

It's revisionist history coming from a place that NEEDS to conclude that an undefeated great actually lost.

It's false, self serving and unrealistic- and that's putting it nicely.

The line you call BS is simple really.

There are 4 scoring criteria. If you use them to score that fight and are objective, you can't possibly have Castillo winning. He was aggressive but effective less than half the time; his defense was not better; his ring generalship left a lot to be desired; and lastly, he landed a lot of things that were neither clean nor effective.

Again, if you are trying to revisit and revise history, then you need to include EVERYTHING that wasn't scored correctly, not just things you cherry pick. And if you score the knockdown as it should have been scored, and score the round that Castillo had a point deduction correctly, it is clear the fight was a bit more lopsided than the judges had it.

Just remember, all judges saw the first 4 rounds for Floyd. Throw in the extra point for the KD, and that is pretty much an insurmountable lead.

Floyd is not immune to having his fights discussed any more than any other fighter. This is not revisionist history, you need to look up the term. I am not discounting at all that there are some who have an agenda. They are looking for anything to try and tarnish his legacy. That is not different then goes with any athlete or "great" individual in history.

There is nothing false discussing the Castillo fight and having an opinion that Floyd lost that fight. You can make your argument that he won. Some will disagree and some will agree. Ultimately it is just your opinion. IMO any sport that requires judging is going to have significant controversy and I also tend to think it is always going to be flawed.

[Diego Rodriguez]

It's revisionist history coming from a place that NEEDS to conclude that an undefeated great actually lost.

It's false, self serving and unrealistic- and that's putting it nicely.

The line you call BS is simple really.

There are 4 scoring criteria. If you use them to score that fight and are objective, you can't possibly have Castillo winning. He was aggressive but effective less than half the time; his defense was not better; his ring generalship left a lot to be desired; and lastly, he landed a lot of things that were neither clean nor effective.

Again, if you are trying to revisit and revise history, then you need to include EVERYTHING that wasn't scored correctly, not just things you cherry pick. And if you score the knockdown as it should have been scored, and score the round that Castillo had a point deduction correctly, it is clear the fight was a bit more lopsided than the judges had it.

Just remember, all judges saw the first 4 rounds for Floyd. Throw in the extra point for the KD, and that is pretty much an insurmountable lead.

Funny I think I read where you said Jacobs beat Golovkin . . . so are you engaging in revisionist history?

[Beercules]

totally disagree, bro. maidana deserves the win on their first fight. the 2nd fight maidana deserves a draw.

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

[koolkc107]

Floyd is not immune to having his fights discussed any more than any other fighter. This is not revisionist history, you need to look up the term. I am not discounting at all that there are some who have an agenda. They are looking for anything to try and tarnish his legacy. That is not different then goes with any athlete or "great" individual in history.

There is nothing false discussing the Castillo fight and having an opinion that Floyd lost that fight. You can make your argument that he won. Some will disagree and some will agree. Ultimately it is just your opinion. IMO any sport that requires judging is going to have significant controversy and I also tend to think it is always going to be flawed.

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.

[koolkc107]

Funny I think I read where you said Jacobs beat Golovkin . . . so are you engaging in revisionist history?

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...

[powershots]

Mayweather lost that fight.

[4truth]

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.

Nobody is revising anything. Most people who watched the fight thought that Castillo won.

You can agree with the judges or you can disagree. The video of the fight is there for anyone to see and I can pretty much guarantee that the majority of people watching 20 years from now or 50 years from now will think Castillo should have gotten the decision.

it is what it is.

[koolkc107]

Nobody is revising anything. Most people who watched the fight thought that Castillo won.

You can agree with the judges or you can disagree. The video of the fight is there for anyone to see and I can pretty much guarantee that the majority of people watching 20 years from now or 50 years from now will think Castillo should have gotten the decision.

it is what it is.

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.