Least blatant robberies?

Recently rescored it and the way people make it out to be the biggest robbery is kinda of ridiculous. I had Norton winning 8-7.

 

Wrong. Ward by 1 point is the most common score for Ward but when over 76 percent polled favor Kovalev any Ward score would be in the minority, garnering just 24 percent of the total of which Ward by 1 point is the most common.

 

Agreed.

 

Sugar Ray Leonard vs Marvin Hagler
Canelo vs GGG 2
Sergio Martinez vs Paul Williams 1

 

Completely ignores what I said.

114-113 for Ward was one of the most common scores. If all three judges also got it that way, from ringside, it isn’t a robbery.

Makes no difference if viewers (aka Kovalev fans) put in more votes for Kovalev when 114-113 Ward remained as one of the most common scores.

 

Actually it’s not Kovalev “fans” take a look at the reports on boxrec from news sources - Kovalev was majority winner by 7-5 and 6-6 with knockdown Kovalev we’re more common than the best Ward tally of 7-5. The less reliable sources “fans” went with Ward. But believe what you want.

 

That's the first one that came to mind for me. Hearns had the two knockdowns but Leonard had Hearns hurt badly twice.

 

114-113 Ward was the third most common score anong media (according to boxrec) and all three judges agreed with it. Therefore, it was reasonable and not a robbery.

 

how on earth is ali v norton a robbery???? 1 round either way by most peoples scorecards. Hardly crime of the century

 

I can't think of one, actually. There are so very few, if any, fights that we know for a fact that the judges were bribed and while flashiness might arguably have edged some fights in one fighters favour, they have been close fights imo.

In fact, in this thread I mostly see close fights being made out to be robberies.

 

Ali vs Norton 2 wasn't a robbery. A TRUE robbery was Lewis vs Holyfield I.

 

True, by its own definition, a least blatant robbery as viewed in one pundits mind might simply constitute a close but fair decision to another observer. There’s also particularly embedded tactical features which lend to a victory that some might view illegal while other fans accept as part of boxing.

Flo Raiden cited Hagler v Leonard. I agree.
Equal and opposite score cards a piece then the ridiculous 118-110 to Ray. Ray probably scored extra points (though not just) for being the smaller man, moving up and coming back after a long lay off. Ray was also flashier and knew when to turn it on to catch the judges attention. Marv plodded but scored nonetheless. Perhaps a draw would’ve been the most just outcome.

Ali v Frazier II. Ali took the points which was fair based on the manifest action. However, Ali’s repeated holding wasn’t fair, clearly a pre med tactic to nullify Joe. The ref upheld it wasn’t fair via warnings but it had no manifest effect on the fight because Ali didn’t stop doing it and the scoring was not duly adjusted via penalties.

Leonard v Hearns II, ala the Thrilla, Ray expected to clean up on what he thought was a well deteriorated Hearns but like Ali and Frazier, whatever their personal current status as boxers, these two had a personalised and intense dynamic between them that brought out their best for a great fight.

Interesting that Hearns didn’t seem too put out by the draw, being more overjoyed by his performance in its own right, lasting the full 12 rds, a redemption of sorts for their first fight. I thought Hearns won a close but clear decision but there didn’t seem due fallout over the decision at the time. Years later Ray more or less did admit that Hearns won that fight and imo history should’ve recorded them as one a piece.

Lastly, Moore v Duran. Roberto’s history for foul tactics was often celebrated. Roberto went to town on Moore in that regard. The ref was awful, letting Duran foul as he pleased. True or not, I’ve read the ref was a family acquaintance of Duran’s. Without same, some might conclude a Duran victory anyway but there is the possible takeaway that Duran himself must’ve felt he needed to foul so badly in order to win.

Ironically, sometimes it’s the more skilled and celebrated fighters who get away with the most blatant fouls even though their much less gifted opposition are the ones who actually might need to foul/cheat somewhat just to remain competitive.

 

I will take it to the grave that this fight wasn’t a robbery, it’s a complete and utter myth, I’ve watched it back countless times just to make sure I hadn’t gone completely crazy and missed something, Kovalev threw the fight away! He stopped throwing and Ward started picking rounds up, I had Ward winning by 2 rounds in the end I think, my scorecard is on here somewhere and I challenge anyone to tell me which rounds I got wrong and why, I might even make a thread on it and expose the ‘kovalev was robbed’ crowd once and for all
Guru

 

Complete robbery.
Kovalev
Kovalev plus KD
Kovalev
Kovalev
Ward close but because Ward did little better gave him round.
Kovalev
Ward
Ward
Ward
Kovalev (this round is critical as Kovalev landed more jabs than Ward landed punches)
Toss up
Kovalev

8-4 -7-5 Kovalev

one man bossed this fight. It was Kovalev. Look at ward’s face and look at his body language when fights over he knew he lost. But hey it was in his hometown