Controvertial decisions that would have changed history the most, if they had gone the other way?

I suspect my HW all time rankings would be different if Mercer had gotten the nod against Lewis.

I scored for Lewis and the fight was close enough for the decision to be debatable, rather than controversial.

Ali vs Norton III is another obvious example, where the decision is genuinely controversial.

 

Jose Luis Castillo getting the nod against Floyd Mayweather in their first fight. Imagine what the mentality from Floyd would be like had he actually lost the fight, and then perhaps avenged that loss in the rematch. His attitude would be vastly different and then obsession over staying undefeated would have died down. More fighters would be taking more risks and it would also help the sport more especially given how most fights that people want to see don't happen right away because a lot of fighters nowadays who are afraid to lose. Boxing fans would be so much more different and less fixated on the 0.

Also add Andre Ward losing to Kovalev in the first fight, Canelo losing to GGG in the first fight, and Devin Haney losing to Lomachenko. History would be really different had Kovalev, GGG, and Lomachenko got the decision in those fights.

 

Ali vs Norton III was already mentioned but is the first one that comes to mind.

Louis vs Walcott I is another one that would have been huge in the heavyweight division.

Sweet pea vs Chavez was pretty bad.

Ike Quartey vs Oscar was not so much a robbery like the others I mentioned but just a really close fight that would have had huge implications in the welterweight division at the time.

 

Julio Cesar Vazquez deserved the nod over Whitaker, who was getting crowned the new P4P king before the first bell rang. Vazquez should arguably had been remembered as a Top 3 ATG at 154. Instead he was used as a coronation prop for Whitaker who couldn't convincingly beat an old, overweight Chavez.

 

Well, had Norton rightfully got the decision, Leon Spinks likely doesn't become a world champion and Ali maybe doesn't become a 3 time heavyweight champ.

Louis immediately gave Walcott a rematch because that was the type of champion he was and he knocked Jersey Joe out. The only thing that would have changed was the length of Louis's historic reign.

Had Ike got the win against Oscar, he likely would have fought Tito in a unification fight instead of Oscar.

 

Larry Holmes Vs. Tim Witherspoon
This means that Witherspoon won There would be no Holmes Vs. Spinks fight, I guess. That would then mean that there wouldn't even be a Tyson Vs Spinks fight....

 

Regarding Walcott, he likely becomes the first man to regain the heavyweight title instead of Patterson.

 

IMHO. I think that would change boxing history more than Ali Vs. Norton 3.
After losing to Norton, he only had one "big" win against Shavers (the question is how big Shavers is). And IMHO it would have been better if Ali had lost to Norton, rather than to Leon Spinks.
Ali's career after Manila is not great, he is not remembered by boxing fans for that, and many dispute it (after Manila).

 

All solid questions but regarding the first one, I think Jersey Joe still goes right after Charles the same way. Walcott certainly defended his title with everything he had in 52' against Rocky. It's true he was looking to maximize his dollar at the end of his career but it is also true he was proud champion and he carried himself as such against Marciano in their first fight.