... and put too little emphasis on defense? Effective aggression and defense are both criteria in scoring, but I often get the feeling that aggression counts heavily in the scoring even though it's not very effective while defense counts for little or nothing. I am a bit hard pressed to find that many examples where such erroneous scoring ended in a robbery, though. One example would be Kalambay-Kalule, which I think Kalambay should have won. Then we have Holy-Valuev that I think Holy should have won. And Kalambay-McCallum I was much closer on the cards than should have been the case, as were a couple of Floyd's fights (especially the SD against DLH, and the MDs against Canelo and Maidana). I'm also astonished that commentators and ringsiders had Toney-Jirov close (the judges got it right, though - and on the flip side, Toney should have lost clearly against Tiberi because of Tiberi's effective aggression). Other examples?
And of course, DLH-Trinidad is a prime example. Tito must have won several rounds by marching into DLH:s fists on the judges' cards. Whitaker-Chavez is another. Hard to know if the judges were just incompetent or on the take in those fights, though. The score cards by the time Tyson was KO'd by Douglas is another travesty of judges finding rounds for the come forward fighter where there are none. But that one smells of corruption as well.
I think you'll find it is generally accepted that had more to do with that subhuman filth King, than anything else.
Jack Johnson against Marvin Hart, however this wasn't outside the norm for the time. Harold Lederman had a ridiculous scorecard after 6 rounds in the Hatton-Mayweather fight. 4-2 in Hatton's favour I believe and I think we can assume Pacquiao-Marquez 1,2 and 3 fall under this category
Kalambay got a lot of that in his career. If he hadn't knocked Graham(who for 90% of the fight fought a high tempo pressuring bout) down in the last round of their first fight, it would have been a draw on the cards and Graham would have kept his Euro title and fought Barkley. Though we can't be sure as there were only ever 8 rounds shown of the fight, imo kalambay took all but one or two of them, he was the only one landing flush punches. And past-prime against Collins, though i don't honestly remember what the official cards were, it seems as if there is a decent sized contingent that feel Collins deserved the decision for his aggression and clearly higher workrate. imo he hit little but gloves, arms and air throughout and ate far too many quality counters from 3-10 to have any argument of winning. ironically in the one notable distance fight where he fights aggressively on the front foot for most of the fight, a past prime out of sorts looking Kalambay gets a debatable decision against Graham in their rematch.
Yeah, there are other than Collins that for some reason think he should have won that fight. Strange. Kovalev vs Hopkins - now that was effective aggression. Wlad vs Haye is another fight that was dominated more by effective aggression than actual clean punches landed. But it really devalues the sport of boxing to give loads of points for "effective" aggression every time someone walks face first into his opponent's fists.
I guess Froch vs Dirrell is another one. I've never actually scored the bout round by round, but I thought Dirrell had won on the night.
I agree with all the fights mentionned. I thought Dirrell was robbed blind against Froch, I rewatched it yesterday. Tarver vs Johnson I
