A robbery

To me, it's not the point disparity that matters--it's whether the person who got robbed undeniably deserved to win more rounds than the person who won. Even if he only deserved to win by one point, it could still be a robbery, in theory.

 

I could agree with this as a theory, but I think we would need to show as innthe fight of the week threads that none of those 7 rounds or 8 in the case of a 15 rounder are close enough to be scored even or for the fighter who received the presumed gift decision. To me there are very few fights that are labeled robbery that can endure that scrutiny...although there are some such as Lockridge vs Gomez where that appeared to be the case. Or IMO Murata getting only a draw akin to Fenech only getting a draw against Nelson! I liken it to the GGG vs Canelo fights and think they are not robberies but rather influenced by media, commentary and of course people who picked G prior to the fight and scored any close round for him....even though they say the judges had their cards filled out in advance I believe it is similar to those who scored for G....but anyway I think some exist, but more often than not I think they are debatable controversial decisions and not outright robberies.

Not really robberies, but I think of Hagler vs SRL...I think it can be scored to either guy and not be a robbery or gift....but seeing 118-110 screams of something not right. Or the Canelo card in the Mayweather fight.

 

I see it as an unjustifiable decision.

If I disagree with the decision, but I think that it was within the bounds of reasonable interpretation, then I do not call it a robbery.

For example I have resisted the use of the word in respect of Louis Walcott I, not because I agree with the decision, but because I think that it is arguable on paper.

 

The only fight I've seen in the FOTW thread that was truly deserving of the term 'robbery' was Gomez-Lockridge. Even if I was looking to score each round for Gomez and give him the benefit of the doubt I don't think I could score it for him. I don't feel that way about any of the other fights I've scored in those threads.

 

I had Mintor winning close to every round. His jab alone kicked Vito s ass

 

That and DLH-Trinidad, imo.

DLH-Trinidad might be the best example of a fairly close fight that was still a robbery.

 

Yeah I agree. I see it in three tiers: close fights, bad decisions, and legitimate robberies

Mosley vs. De La Hoya II was called a robbery at the time, but I would just call that a close fight that could go either way.

Vernon Forrest vs. Ike Quartey was a bad decision, but it wasn't horrible.

Tavoris Cloud vs. Gabriel Campillo was a complete robbery. So was Brandon Rios vs. Richard Abril. Cases like these only make sense when you assume some sort of corrupting influence behind the judging.


I stopped using the term robbery so liberally when I saw so many people, whose views I respected, producing significantly different scores from mine. The first three Pacqiuao vs. Marquez were a big part of me softening my views on what constitutes a robbery. Those fights were sort of like boxing's equivolent of modern art, where multiple viewers could all come away with radically different interpretations of what took place. The Ali vs. Norton fights were probably something similar for that generation.

Also, I don't really factor in how many points I think a guy should have won by. For me its whether he decisively won more than 50% of the points. Sergio Martinez vs. Kermit Cintron is a good example: despite getting 'kayoed' in round 7, Cintron actually won like 5 rounds on my scorecard iirc. But Martinez won six rounds in pretty lopsided fashion and edged another, + the extra point, so he CLEARLY won, even though there wasn't a huge numerical gap in my scores.

 

While I agree with your premise, I don’t agree with this particular example. Looking back at that thread, there seem to be 3 wide 9-3 8-4 type of cards....but mine was 115-114 DLH, Chrisjs had a draw and Jel had Tito winning. I think these are just as reflective as a possible outcome....and I like @Jel and don’t think he was robbing DLH on purpose lol

 

I think if it’s a twelve round fight it’s possible for a guy to clearly win 7 rounds and deserve 115-113 and it be a robbery but those are rare. I scored Morales-Barrera I 7-5 Barrera but always felt that’s a robbery. In general anything 8-4 or anything wider than 9-6 are robberies about 90% of the time.

 

You're right - no axe to grind against DLH (I had him beating Whitaker when others had it for Sweetpea). Tito is one of my favourite fighters though, can't deny it!

To be honest, I think a draw would have been the right result in that one. It was an unsatisfying fight and deserved an unsatisfactory result.

 

Excellent post and I fully agree with the highlighted part. I rarely refer to a decision as a robbery unless I'm positive that the decision was genuinely corrupt. The vast majority of the time, I think it's on the level even if I disagree with the scoring.

 

to me a robbery is 1 fighter , to my mind, undeniably winning a fight by several rounds, as i score it, only not to get the nod. Close fights do not equate to robbery ala hagler v leonard or ali v norton 3. Fenech v nelson 1 and to be honest wilder v fury were robberies IMO

 

It seems also lately that judges don't score rounds even anymore either. For example if 2 fighters aren't effective during a round but one throws a few more punches more, even if they miss or don't do anything significant they'll give it to that fighter. I wonder if that's why we get a lot of bad decisions.