Most controversial results: Canelo vs GGG 1, Ward vs Kovalev 1, or Haney vs Lomachenko

Discussion in 'World Boxing Forum' started by Flo_Raiden, May 23, 2023.



Most controversial results

  1. Canelo vs GGG 1

    117 vote(s)
    68.4%
  2. Ward vs Kovalev 1

    35 vote(s)
    20.5%
  3. Haney vs Lomachenko

    19 vote(s)
    11.1%
  1. m.s.

    m.s. Boxing Addict Full Member

    5,738
    4,801
    Nov 2, 2010
    GGG boxed Canelo silly in the 2nd fight. Canelo proved his toughness but got out boxed. Great fight, and probably both boxers greatest perfomance, wrong verdict though.
     
  2. Glassbrain

    Glassbrain Well-Known Member Full Member

    1,526
    1,265
    Apr 9, 2016
    All 3 similar kind of level of robbery, somewhat competitive but clear winners in all.
     
    UnleashtheFURY likes this.
  3. shadow111

    shadow111 Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    20,406
    7,319
    Aug 1, 2012
    Who outboxed who depends on which round. There were rounds in the rematch that Canelo outboxed GGG, but granted there were more rounds that GGG outboxed Canelo. GGG definitely outboxed Canelo to a greater extent than he did in the first fight, which was largely because Canelo set his mind to take the fight to GGG and stay in the pocket. It wasn't as if GGG made some incredible adjustment from fight 1 to fight 2. Canelo made himself an easier target for GGG due to how he fought. GGG did make some adjustments and boxed better in the rematch, but he had a less elusive target in front of him to hit. The problem for GGG was that target was (for the most part) not affected by his punches and was determined to eat light jabs to get inside and unload on GGG with big power punches that won over the judges.

    To the extent that Canelo was outboxed in the rematch, he managed to out muscle and out slug GGG, and inflict more punishment. GGG outpointed Canelo, mostly with jabs, but Canelo still was giving GGG plenty of head and upper body movement and was able to slip a lot of shots despite standing toe to toe with GGG, and while doing that Canelo was able to land the heavier and more eye catching shots while applying constant pressure and come forward aggression to earn the victory.
     
  4. shadow111

    shadow111 Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    20,406
    7,319
    Aug 1, 2012
    All 3 were highly competitive, not somewhat, and there was no clear victor in any of them. Even Kovalev Ward 1, while Ward was knocked down, while the rounds Ward won were close, while most thought Kovalev won, it still was a great fight, and a dramatic fight down the stretch, and in totality a very close fight and hard to score. You'd be selling any of these 3 epics short by claiming they were only somewhat competitive or to suggest that there was a clear winner. There wasn't a clear winner in any of them. There's a big difference between a majority thinking Kovalev, GGG, and Loma won, to it being clear that they won. To win a boxing match clear, you have to leave no doubt, you have to pretty much dominate. Nothing close to that happened. Boxing fans love to toss around the word clear to describe rounds or overall results, myself included, but a close fight is a close fight, and if a result is debatable or controversial then it's not clear.
     
  5. Glassbrain

    Glassbrain Well-Known Member Full Member

    1,526
    1,265
    Apr 9, 2016
    There was a clear winner in all 3. The vast majority of people had GGG, Kovalev & Lomachenko winning and for good reason, because they clearly won in somewhat competitive fights. These weren't robberies on the scale of a Richar Abril Vs Brandon Rio's, but I watched all 3 of the "victors" get beat. If the roles were reversed the opposites camps would also feel hard done by.
     
  6. shadow111

    shadow111 Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    20,406
    7,319
    Aug 1, 2012
    It's one thing to feel hard done by these decisions. They're passion inducing and that passion causes fans to become emotionally invested. And I'm not immune to being emotionally invested either, but I don't see decisions as the end all be all like some fans do. I don't let judging decisions drive me up a wall, and I try not to let my emotions cloud my judgement.

    So I get where you're coming from and I'm not saying you're wrong for feeling like any of these were robberies or that you saw a clear winner. Maybe you did, but it's also your interpretation of what happened. And a majority being convinced that something happened in a certain way does not prove anything. Mass delusion, confirmation bias and peer pressure are real and do affect fans perceptions of what occurs in a boxing ring.
     
    MURK20 likes this.
  7. C.J.

    C.J. Boxings Living Legend revered & respected by all Full Member

    45,737
    15,059
    Apr 14, 2009
    Exactamundo !!
     
  8. Glassbrain

    Glassbrain Well-Known Member Full Member

    1,526
    1,265
    Apr 9, 2016
    You're using low level manipulation by attempting to patronise and fabricate my "feelings" on the subject to further your agenda. On the contrary, I have no particular investment in any of these fighters or any strong feelings about the results. Purely from an objective standpoint, when I scored those fights I felt all 3 Kovalev, GGG & Lomachenko clearly deserved the win.

    Ask yourself how it is in almost all of these instances, the perceived house or money fighter gets the benefit of the doubt? Boxing is allowed to be taken advantage of by corruption because of fans like you, either that have an agenda or are unable to view the situation clearly & objectively.

    I will challenge you, find the last 10 perceived "robbery" type decisions and we'll see how many go against the house fighter. Surely if this wasn't a case of mass hysteria or peer pressure or confirmation bias, then you'd say that this should come out at about 50/50 in terms of well promoted house fighter Vs poorly promoted/less marketable fighter, right?
     
    Dynamicpuncher likes this.
  9. m.s.

    m.s. Boxing Addict Full Member

    5,738
    4,801
    Nov 2, 2010
    Golovkin landed some lighter, and heavier jabs, as well as lead rights that Canelo walked into along with the jabs he walked into. Golovkin also blocked and avoided alot of Canelo's attemped bombs and landed his share of heavy shots. To Canelo's credit he stayed determined and took GGG'S shots well. Golovkin never fought somebody strong enough to deal with his power and coming back. This is why it was so impressive, he adjusted and boxed somebody he couldn't bomb out and showed elite boxing skills.Then rallied down the stretch. Golovkin was pushed to his ceiling as was Canelo.
     
    Last edited: May 25, 2023
  10. shadow111

    shadow111 Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    20,406
    7,319
    Aug 1, 2012
    That's like, your interpretation, man. Was not intended to patronise or speak to you specifically.
    You may not, but a lot of fans do. The difference with me is I'm very cautious about claiming something is clear or that the way I see it is the way it is. I often go out of my way to explain why I came to the conclusions I did. While some may disagree with me for any of my takes, at least they know why, at least they know my reasoning. Most people don't support their scores with the kind of detail I provide. And if I'm out of my depth on something, I make it clear that I'm not sure.

    Like with Haney Loma, I didn't give a concrete score for every round. I said, as I was watching it live, I scored the first 6 rounds, then 7-9 I wasn't sure about. So I'm trying to differentiate between the rounds that are easier to score vs the rounds that people disagree on, and saying there's an acceptable range of scores here. Rather than what other people do any say "this is my score, I'm right, you are wrong" sort of thing. And I really don't get why more people don't follow my lead on this, because it is a useful way to understand what happened. I gave a score for the rounds that seemed clear to me while watching it live, while saying I scored Round 1 for Loma, recognizing that this was a round that some other people said it was a Haney round. So that (round 1) along with 7-9 are "split round" territory for me. Splitting hard to score rounds should be the default, anotherwords if you gave 2 of those rounds (1, 7, 8 and 9) to each fighter, then that makes sense. That seems "balanced" to me. If you gave 3 of those 4 rounds to either fighter, then perhaps there's more of a need to explain why. If you gave all 4 of those rounds to either fighter, then in my view, you got some 'splainin to do, because you've just given 4 razor close rounds to the same fighter. Which is justifable but not exactly accurate if the goal is to come to the most accurate score possible.

    It's a failure to recognize the close hard to score rounds that is the main problem. It's not having a score that's different from the judges. It's not being seen as unreasonable for giving close round after close round to the same fighter, it's recogizing that you made a decision there in doing that, that you took a fork in the road and end up on an island. I've been on an island before when it comes to scoring, too, so I'm not here to criticize anyone who scored it for Loma, but there should be the recognition that you went down a path that you didn't have to go down, while others took another path which is well within reason.
    Fair point, when Ali got the decision over Norton the 3rd time at Yankee Stadium, the majority scored it for Norton. But how many of those people who scored it for Norton said it was a robbery? It was recognized as close, but Norton dug down deep in many of those rounds, maybe Ali got some kind of "Champion's advantage" there. Was Ali the "house or money fighter" against Norton the 3rd time at Yankee Stadium? Probably, he was the bigger name, he carried the sport for longer than Norton did, so he got the benefit of the doubt?

    And even though Norton probably deserved that victory, I didn't have a huge problem with Ali winning it because he still fought a hell of a fight himself. Everyone looks at it through their own lens and human beings have a tendency to think they are seeing anything more clearly than someone else. Pride, ego are in play here, while we don't have to agree on scoring, we should be able to agree on which rounds were close and which rounds weren't, to identify where the "swing" rounds were and how everyone's arrived at the scores they have.
    Correlation does not imply causation. I'm merely saying that mass delusion (not mass hysteria, although that's a thing too) along with peer pressure and confirmation bias are all factors that are in play, especially on a message board where people's view of a boxing match are supported by others who see it similarly. But none of that changes what happened in the ring or the accuracy of those who saw it differently.
     
  11. DoubleG95Fanatic

    DoubleG95Fanatic Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,243
    1,835
    Oct 25, 2021
    Where do people put Froch Groves 1 in the list on controversial.
     
  12. shadow111

    shadow111 Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    20,406
    7,319
    Aug 1, 2012
    And what about Froch vs Andre Dirrell? At the time that was seen as a very controversial "hometown" decision for Froch. A lot of fans at the time thought that Andre Dirrell was robbed.
     
  13. Babality

    Babality KTFO!!!!!!! Full Member

    27,252
    11,600
    Dec 6, 2008
    I thought Dirrell beat Froch.
     
  14. shadow111

    shadow111 Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    20,406
    7,319
    Aug 1, 2012
    Same here. I scored it for Dirrell, and I was gutted when Froch got the decision. I thought it was a total gift "hometown" decision. It was a masterful performance by Andre Dirrell, the lateral motion, the counter punching, how he set traps for Froch, made him miss at times. Andre Dirrell was so elusive, it was a fantastic gameplan to give him that kind of movement and frustrate Froch. Don't get me wrong Froch did have his moments, and it was a very close fight, but I thought Dirrell deserved the victory there.

    Do you consider that a robbery? Favorable scoring for Froch? It certainly belongs in this conversation.
     
  15. Babality

    Babality KTFO!!!!!!! Full Member

    27,252
    11,600
    Dec 6, 2008
    I did think Dirrell was robbed. And I like Froch a thousand times more.
     
    shadow111 likes this.