How much do controversial wins count against a great fighter?

Yeah, but it doesn’t have the same magnitude. Speak to a 20 year old boxing fan, and ask him about Lewis/Holyfield. I guarantee he doesn’t show the same passion about it as he does about Canelo/ggg

 

Was one of the judges Robert Patrick?

 

Dave Moretti has judged 7 of the last 10 Canelo fights. There's your pattern. The guy brings his own personal judge to his fights.

 

I cannot find a single trace of ANY of these fighters?... Is it because they don't exist?

 

Major trolling lol

Good thread and topic, I happen to agree with you. I just don't really find the fake examples funny, Sven Ottke would have been ideal though

 

*Laughs in Sven Ottke*

 

Ottke was the guy who fought Reid, right? The fight where the ref gave Reid a warning for, apparently, hitting Ottke too hard?

 

We live in the internet age where information is available everywhere concerning the fights, nobody will forget or stop talking about the two robberies against Golovkin by Delahoya and golden boy.

 

The problem is the debate will be did they beat them. And if it is not in the record books they did not. One point the other way would have given Thomas Hearns the fight with Ray in the rematch, and that would have boosted his record. Yes one point on one judges card.

 

My good friend in Ft Worth Texas Paulie Ayala summed up this this when some guy asked him "Do you really think you won that first fight with Johnny Tapia" Paulie replied " I gave everything I had in that fight so did Johnny Tapia it was 1999 Fight of the Year. That was our job to FIGHT It was up to the judges to decide the winner. but yes I think I won a close hard fought decisiont" I agree with him on both counts

 

Official results mean less in boxing than in any other sport. By far. A close, controversial decision is fine if it is against a quality opponent. Repeated home town referees and judges, though, do take luster off a guy.

Can you really say either of Canelo or GGG lost any status in that effort they gave a couple weeks back? No. The fact those two fought tooth and nail shows they are both great fighters.

Hagler and Leonard are on another level of greatness. You can still debate their fight to this day, but it would take another great fighter to push either man.

 

Nope, getting a controversial win means nothing in my opinion, outside of having the official W. If a fighters best wins are all of the controversial variety, like Canelo, it's really becomes laughable.

 

I guess it is up to the individual? To me I operate on official decisions...the problem is that most boxing fans/media don’t understand scoring. They choose to operate off of crowd noise, punch stats, personal preference or whose Face is the most beat up etc. akin to which team has the prettiest uniform or coolest name. The 10 point must system or the nuances it is scored by is something they can’t grasp or chooses not to.

The other part is no objectivity, to many fan boys arguing every close decision loss by thier fav and not reciprocating the same leniacy to a guy they don’t favor. As well as lack of consensus opinion when the official card gives us a universal fact whether or not we like it.

So to much bias and to many uniformed opinions would cloud that.

But again up to the individual? For example if the only thing separating FMJ and Whitaker was a controversial draw against Chavez, then sure by all means go ahead and right that IYO, but for the most part it is probably best to rate accordingly