Do you feel these heavyweight fights consisted of robberies, etc.??

In no real order of the crime / criminal judges themselves, I'll list as follows what can be considered questionable verdicts rendered:

"Ali W15 Young" of '76.

"Ali W15 Norton 3" of '76.

"Holmes W12 Spoon" of '83

"Spinks W15 Holmes 2" of '86.

"Tyson W10 Tillis" of '86.

"Foreman W12 Schulz" of '95.

"Moorer W12 Bean" of '96.

"Holmes W10 Harris" of '97.

"Briggs W12 Foreman" of 97.

Did the judges screw these fight results up???:huh:|atsch

NOTE:

In my book, I am only furious over the decisions rendered in "Holmes-Spinks 2" of '86, and "Foreman-Briggs" of 1997...
:fire
Also, I've gone on file numerous times stating I gave Ali the nod over Norton at Yankee Stadium by a **** hair...
:bbb
MR.BILL:hat

 

briggs w12 foreman you mean?

 

Minging ****ing ROBBERIES those ****ers are - judges were ****S!! :twisted::fire

 

I fixed it..:good

MR.BILL:hat

 

Holmes-Harris, Spinks-Holmes II, briggs-foreman, and Norton III were. foreman-shultz and Moorer-bean were definitely debatable.

 

Ahhh, so I now know Foreman's Hook is from the UK. I did not know that. Okay, so "know" isn't quite accurate. But now I'm going to assume.

 

Gave Ali the Young fight because Young was almost cowardly.

Had Norton III to Ali as well, close. Could easily give it to Norton, but the result is far from a robbery.

Holmes definitely won the rematch with Spinks. Thats a robbery.

Had Holmes beating Spoon.

Tyson beat Tillis. Not a debateable verdict.

Schulz beat Foreman, imo, but I had it closer than most.

Moorer beat Bean.

Harris beat Holmes by a hair.

Foreman easily defeated Briggs. That one was a robbery.

 

What the **** is up with this revisionism about Tillis beating Tyson? He was lucky to win 3 rounds.

 

Wherever a fight goes the distance, a fanboy or detractor will be there to claim the loser really won. Rule of life.

 

Pretty fair calls here....:thumbsup

MR.BILL:deal

 

Then **** life.

 

Agreed.:good But that thread of late has over 100+ posts..:deal Why?atsch

Tyson won on points pretty conclusive in my eyes....:hat

MR.BILL:bbb

 

Camacho really out-hustled Chavez. The judges were blind.

 

No, but Duran at age 45 out-hustled the 34 year old Camacho in 1996... That was robbery... I was livid...
:twisted:

MR.BILL:bbb

 

....charles/walcott IV...so bad the referee could be heard cheering walcott on and taking away charles' body attack by calling shots to the collarbone low...a robbery all the way...by officials and the referee....