Originally posted by Barnburner
View Post
Lennox Lewis vs Vitali Klitschko is a very good choice. I always get annoyed when people say that Lennox got a lucky escape and was down on the scorecards and this, that and the other. All of that is irrelevant because he was tearing Vitali a new eye-socket and it was very obvious that the fight wasn't going to go the distance. Yes he was tired and was obviously struggling physically but he was in better shape than Vitali was when it was stopped. I would have liked to see a rematch but it wasn't a robbery at all.
Amazingly enough, I haven't seen Hagler-Leonard yet but I have read plenty about it and i'm planning to watch it later today and then post my feelings about it in this thread. It's one of the most debated fights ever.
Originally posted by Mastrangelo
I guess part of it depends on how you define a robbery. I look at it as being a fight where one guy won at least 8 rounds and got jobbed. I don't think you can say that De La Hoya did that against Mosley in the 2nd fight but I have seen it a few times and find it hard to give Shane more than 5 rounds. I completely disagree with your assesment of Sturm-Macklin. In my opinion, calling that fight a robbery is like saying that Mike McCallum was robbed in the first James Toney fight or that Johnny Tapia dominated Paulie Ayala in their fights. Can you make a good argument that he did enough to win the fight? Absolutley. But can you honestly give me 7 or 8 rounds that he won unequivocally? Absolutley not. It was a very close fight. Macklin won most of the first 6 rounds and Sturm won most of, if not all the last 6 rounds. I had Sturm winning by 116-113 and I think at best Macklin you can give Macklin 7 rounds. Any more than that is a stretching of reality, at least in my humble opinion. Ive seen several more controversial fights.
Comment