I still can't get over the Loma Haney robbery and I never will

Prepare yourselves my bros!:

Not a robbery. It's an extremely close fight off these boards.

The only meaningfully collective scoring database i've seen is Boxrec's. Nearly a 1000 scorers have it scored as an average: 113.26-114.52 in favour of Lomachenko. The collective difference, which is useful for screening out biases and weak scorers, has it to Lomachenko by a point. By contrast, Bradley-Pac 1, a real robbery, has a composite score line of 111.1-116.53, a difference of 5.4 points. A point for Loma - 5 points in favour of Pacquiao.

Secondly, and just as important, the composite scores either 2 or 3 rounds in the entire fight that are not close. All of these go to Lomachenko in fairness, but that puts him 3-0 on clear rounds, with 9 rounds up for grabs - nine rounds that split people in such a way that it was impossible to see them clean. What this means is that while an optimal scorecard might be for Lomachenko, nine rounds are rounds that can reasonably be scored elsewhere, by this dataset. By contrast, in Bradley-Pac 1, Pacquiao won seven rounds clearly by the composite. 7-0. So there's no way to score the fight for Bradley, reasonably, it's impossible.

However, it's just one dataset, so let's look at punchstats.

More punches landed by round:
Loma: 3,7,10,11,12
Haney: 2,4,5,6,9,
Even: 1,8,

Tied (like my scorecard).

More power punches landed by round:
Loma:2,3,7,10,11,12
Haney:1,4,5,6,8,9,

6-6. Tied again.

These are SO close. There just aren't the differences, in scoring, in punches, and by my eye, in the fight to call this a robbery. I did score the fight a second time and I did have it 115-113 to Loma second time around, but I also, like CBS from ringside, couldn't get over how many close and debateable rounds there were in the fight.

I'm lost for an explanation as to why so many people are so upset about it, and when that happens I look for three things: punchstats (not interested normally but they can sometimes direct me to where i've gone wrong on my scorecard. The punchstats are very close); composite scoring (favours Lomachenko, barely, but note an astonishing 9 very close rounds, which is abnormal); ringside reporting, which as favoured Lomachenko, but almost always while noting how close so many of the rounds were.

In the end, over the years, I've just come to think of it as a sort of fallacy of the internet, or certain corners of the internet, like Holyfield-Valuev.

Anyway, didn't mean to upset anyone, just thought I'd mention it.

 

I mean he's beloved on this board, because reasons, and there's nothing wrong with that, every board has its favourite fighters. Tbf, there was a lot of upset about this result beyond these boards, but i'm going to say: in my experience (which is limited) there were not a lot of people who had a scorecard you could look, that were scoring the fight round by round, in the stadium, that were that upset about it. So Roy Jones was cross, but didn't have a rbr. There was a fair bit of that.

I also do think that an absolutely optimal card probably would have been for Loma, he did win two rounds on my scorecard very cleanly (Haney won 0 very cleanly), but there's a difference between that and what was claimed on his behalf in some spots online.