Robberies That Were Not.....

Thanks, SalSanchezFan.

Yep, all competitive. Maybe a better way of phrasing it would be that I agree with you in some ways (as in, they weren't the complete cakewalks some portray them as) but disagree with the idea that the guys on the perceived wrong end of the decision can't feel robbed when they look back on those fights.

I had Tommy beating Leonard 115-112, Hagler beating Antuofermo 145-141 and Zarate beating Pintor by the same score last time I scored these bouts. So none of them were runaway jobs or one-sided by any means, we can agree on that. In fact, in terms of controlling longer spells and more rounds of the fight (or rather, stopping Hearns from controlling them) Leonard did better second time around then he did in the first twelve rounds of their original encounter in 1981. The overall flow of the action in the rematch was a lot more even.

But while it was close (6-5-1 for Hearns in my eyes) in terms of who won more rounds, two of Tommy's were 10-8s, which really should have put it beyond any doubt in my opinion. You could conceivably make it a very narrow Hearns win, maybe even as tight as something like 114-113, but to do that I think you'd need to give Leonard all the benefit of the doubt, and even doing so it still comes out as a Hearns win. When basically everyone agrees that one guy won the fight, even if a lot of them think it was only narrowly, it can still be a robbery if that man doesn't get the decision.

Over the longer fifteen round course I think there's less room for debate on the other two. Hagler coasted towards the end and let Vito blint him in the inside exchanges and Zarate fought too tentatively against Pintor, so both of them arguably made tactical errors, but too wrongs don't make a right and even with those errors they still clearly won even if they didn't outclass or dominate their man. You don't need to do those things to be a deserved winner sometimes. No need to compound their errors by being too generous to their opponent.

 

You mean besides land more blows and score the only KD of the fight? Sure, besides those very important things in a boxing match he didn't do much... atsch

 

What drugs are you on and do I need to arrange an intervention. Saying the fight was pretty close is one thing, saying Chavez should've won makes me think you're blind or don't know how to score a fight properly.

 

She did.
Don't fall for the Illuminati deception. :nono

 

I've seen the fight plenty of times and I'm a relatively big fan of Chavez. But there's no way he won more than four rounds in that fight.

 

Hi red! You know how much I love Patterson; I've probably viewed that fight, AT LEAST, 50 times. The old mantra that you have to take the fight to the champion has to be considered and the old Floyd 'passivity' was clearly on display here with repeated viewings. We've all seen it his entire career, why would a HOF bad*** like Patterson take 24 rounds to put away Roy Harris & Brian London??? atsch
That being said, I still feel he won that fight. I've got a screensaver picture showing them both in the ring right after the decision was announced. Floyd, unmarked, with a bemused look on his face and Jimmy, hands in the air with a smooched nose, a closing eye, and a beat to a pulp gargyole looking hideous looking face.

 

That's interesting for sure, most posters are dead set in views once they've established their view of reality. Me included. So I admire your willingness to re-look at it again. I thought the second fight was either 8-4 or 7-5 either score works.

 

Unless you are sitting ringside , no armchair pistolero sitting at home has any business scoring fights.

 

I've watched it plenty of times and still can't give Chavez for than 4 rounds. To even think he won the majority of rounds in that fight is bordering on blindness.

 

Pacquiao - Marquez III comes to mind for me. I kept hearing about how Marquez was robbed and this and that but when I actually saw the fight and scored it for myself, it was alot closer than I expected with some very close rounds. I

 

I said his "losses." He never lost to Daniel Judah.

 

....the first louis/walcott fight is often called a robbery .....and on points walcott would/should have won. by with the round system the two knockdowns walcott scored just gave him two rounds, the same as two rounds louis edged him by. i've only seen the highlights on film and from that it looks like walcott gave louis a boxing lesson.
the sports writers mostly favored walcott, but there were many who gave it to louis, the general feeling was walcott lost the last two rounds by just staying out of the way and letting louis chase him and win on aggression.

so walcott may have been the winner, but only by a close decision...i don't think it was a robbery.