The ridiculous cries of robbery

no it was definitely a robbery espescially since hopkins took control of the fight since round 5 and already had won round 2 and possibly 4

 

The 1st KD was a clear as day rabbit punch. Should not have been counted as a KD. Pascal threw the same punch a few rounds later and the ref did not count the KD.

 

Erm no your calculations are wrong. Pascal did not just need 2 rounds after the 2 knockdowns to earn a draw. That would result in a 114-112 scorecard in favour of Hopkins. Pascal needed 3 other rounds other than the 2 10-8 rounds he got in rounds 1 and 3 to earn a draw.

I had Hopkins winning by 2 rounds, 114 to 112. I do agree though it was a close fight so the calls of robbery are a bit ridiculous. But hey this is the general forum, it's filled with trolls, fanboys and haters. It sometimes seems the rational and objective posters like ourselves are the minority on here.

Though I will add that the fight was pretty easy to score and Hopkins clearly won even if it was close on the scorecards.

 

hopkins was winning that round as well by the way.

 

I'm sorry but Hopkins so obviously won this fight, even if it was only by a couple of points. Which, yes, makes it robbery. If this fight was anywhere other than Quebec i think we all know what the result would have been. How can you defend this decision??

 

I hear what you're saying but i think the only way ANYBODY could score this a draw was if they were engineering their cards to favour pascal. The crowd went quiet for the entire second half of the fight!! They knew they were witnessing a schooling! Pascals body language at the end of the fight suggested he thought he'd lost despite being the home fighter.

 

The first knockdown was an illegal punch to the back of the head, the ref made an error. Hops dominated the round until he got dropped illegally with that back-of-head shot. But regardless, only 10-9 to Pascal for me giving him credit for the knockdown. No way 10-8 in round 1.

I gave the 2nd rd to Pascal

The 3rd round a clean knockdown of Hopkins but again like round 1 Bernard dominated the round so 10-9.

Rounds 4-12 Hopkins, therefore, yes... A ROBBERY

117-111 Hopkins

 

So basically, what you're saying is that eventhough Bernard should have won the fight, the judges scored it a draw because the judges scored the fight incorrectly because they were influenced by the crowd?

Isn't that exactly what a robbery is?

And Pascal needed 3 other rounds, 2KD + 2 rounds = 114/112 for Hopkins, which is what one of the judges scored the fight... And did he get those 3 rounds? I don't think so... But the fact is, I think the 1st knockdown was a shot behind the head, so even if it was scored a knockdown, might have not been one... But then nothing the judges can do about that...

In the end of the day, old man Hopkins pretty much schooled and exposed big head Pascal. :deal

 

Its ok if you think BHOP won. Its ok if you think it was robbery. However, do not mention a boxer age or his resume as a reason to win a fight. 3 points?? No, you dont get **** by being old. That's moronic. Can't win a fight just by being older. That is not how boxing works

 

This wasn't a robbery at all. A close debatable decision sure, robbery? Don't make me laugh.
You guys need to go watch Lewis - Holyfield to remind yourselves of what a real robbery is.

 

totally agree with the crowd point, kessler v froch and ward v bika were 2 other recent fights were judges were influenced by crowd noise imo.

 

i agree

 

Just watched it for the first time. I gave both 1 & 3 as 10-8's, and Pascal rounds 5 and 12, bar that I gave Hopkins every round. 114-112 for me. Not a robbery, close fight that could have gone either way, without the knockdowns it would have been a robbery but the knockdowns made it close, I don't share the sentiments that Hopkins was winning round 3 either. I could have easily given Pascal round 10 and had it a 113-113 draw.