Robberies That Were Not.....

canelo lara definitely was a close fight.

mayweather castillo 1. the first time i scored it i got mayweather and figured i didn't know how to score fights properly. scored it again a year or two later and got the same result. A close fight but i think the desire to see floyd lose blinds people to that one.

 

ellis-patterson
holmes-witherspoon

 

Holmes/Williams and certainly Holmes/SpinksI, maybe even the second fight too.

 

Mayweather-Castillo 1

 

Glen Johnson's 20 losses.

I hear people go on and on about Glen was robbed in this fight and Glen was robbed in that one.

While some were close ... absolutely none were robberies.

You can be a good fighter and lose a lot. Glen Johnson just lost a lot.

 

Well, the referee Harold Valan made a case that in person, up close, that Ellis did deserve that decision, but to me, from my black and white Philco, I sure thought Patterson won it.

 

IMO Pastrano-Johnson

 

The first fight wasn't close at all, and the second fight was a clear win for Lewis. might want to try watching these fights again. The only one robbed in these two fights was Lewis in the first fight, big time robbery.

 

I wanted Floyd but felt he just didn't work enough in a fight he was capable of winning. I know most disagree but no robbery.

 

People always call fights "robberies" when they are close fights that could go either way. To make it worse, they use Compubox as "evidence" when it suits them but dismiss punchstats when it doesn't suit them.

I don't think that **** should be taken seriously.

Mayweather-Castillo 1: Castillo got off to a very slow start and even when he started to get going, he was still missing a lot and some of those latter rounds were close and could go either way.

Pacquiao-Marquez 1-3: All close fights that I could see going either way. I had Pacquiao winning the first by 1, and I definitely thought at least one of the rounds he won was very close and could go to Marquez. I had Marquez winning the 2nd by 1. This fight was easier to score, but I could see Pacquiao winning by 1. The 3rd I had even and thought there were some tough-to-score rounds as well.

Jones-Tarver 1: I can't believe people actually called this a robbery and said it was "controversial". It was a fair decision and Tarver was fortunate to receive a rematch. He did nothing for large stretches of the fight but stand and look at Roy. Either credit Jones for bodywork that made Tarver cautious, or criticize Tarver for not taking enough chances and pushing it when he had an exhausted Jones in front of him, but the decision was fair.

Rahman-Toney 1: I didn't see what the supposed robbery was. Rahman was busier and showed a nice jab. Toney landed a lot of clean counters which didn't seem to faze Rahman at all.

 

The Daniel Judah fight was an absolute robbery.

 

I've never been able to row with the idea that Witherspoon got jobbed against Holmes, either. Had a couple of goes at scoring that one and both times I've had Larry pulling it out by a couple of rounds. Close fight but I'd have a hard time giving 'Spoon anything better than a draw. He just got outworked and outhussled as much as anything else - had Holmes hurt badly in the ninth, then follows it up by hardly throwing a punch in the tenth. Not a robbery at all for me. If any one of Holmes' decision wins was a robbery then in my opinion it was the Williams one, but that never seems to get much of a mention in comparison to the Witherspoon fight.

Alan Rudkin against Lionel Rose, too. Don't get me wrong, I can certainly see a case for Rudkin....But I can see a case for Rose in that one, too. Just one of those razor-thin ones that could have gone either way in my opinion. Excellent fight, though.

Not sure if it's widely considered a robbery or if it's just a small section of dullards who like to moan about it, but the more time passes the more I see Dirrell-Froch getting thrown about in the 'robbery' debates, too. Having six very good rounds in a fight can end up counting for little if you mix it with six God-awful ones. Dirrell won his rounds bigger and more impressively than Froch, but that fight can only be considered a robbery if you started watching it from round ten onwards, or if you missed the four rounds previously (particularly the sixth and seventh) where Dirrell spent his time doing slightly less than absolutely nothing having made a decent start through rounds one to five.

Again, let me clarify - I was there in the arena on the night. From my seat at the time I had Dirrell a point up at the end. I revisited it a while back and had it for Froch that time, but again only by a single point. If Dirrell had got the nod I believe that now we'd just be hearing in some quarters that it was Froch who got 'robbed', although I'd have still disagreed with the use of that word. Very, very close and whoever got the nod could have considered lady luck to have been marginally more on their side than their opponent's, but not a robbery.

There are loads others - some of which have been mentioned here - where I really can't see what the big fuss is about; Jones-Tarver I, Hagler-Leonard, Pastrano-Johnson, Jofre-Harada etc.

As for the three original picks in the article - can't really agree. Hearns-Leonard II, Hagler-Antuofermo I and Zarate-Pintor were all competitive but for me there's no doubt whenever I see them who appreciably deserved the nod. In my above choices, I think you can make a case for both men. In these, however, while I think you could conceivably make them close, you still can only come up with one winner every time - that's the difference. Tommy, Marvin and Carlos were right to feel very hard done by in those ones, for me.

 

Funnily enough, a mate and me watched the second fight and scored it for Holyfield, but I watched it again recently and had Lewis a clear winner! I can't remember ever changing my mind over a fight so much before.