Which fighters have benefitted the most from bad decisions?

Please die.

 

Ali was better than anyone thought he'd be in the Berbick fight. That made the fight look closer than it actually was. The FOTC was terrific,as we all know,and Ali put Frazier through hell. Saying it could easily have gone Muhammad's way,though,is a flight of fancy. There are some equally deluded souls,though,who claim that Frazier won the second one. If anything,that was the most one sided out of the trilogy.

 

He sure did ! Benn,Close,Schommer. The list is long.

 

Holmes suffered badly from bad decisions; Spinks II, McCall & Nielsen.

 

chris eubank
sven ottke

 

Dazzo Williams - http://boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=34080&cat=boxer

Received three bull**** one point decisions..... two of the fights he clearly lost. The Simpson decision was a disgrace, Lewis vs Holyfield I kinda disgrace.

 

Come on he clearly won both of those fights.

 

chris eubank michael watson 1 was a disgrace

 

Only one sided because ali held frazier illegaly behind the head about 40 times each round and that idiot tony perez just said "i couldnt do anything about it" which is very suspicious of money being changed hands.

All Ali got was gift decisions ie Norton, favouritism in referees and then liston who fixed both fights and im even more adamant the first liston clay fight was fixed after il duce's refereeing report.

 

that decision was sickening i still feel for roy now.

 

You've gone mad Alex, do you own that pic in your avy by any chance?

 

yeah its mine signed.

 

Come on, there is not one fight that Eubank won a decision in, that there was not a pretty decent argument as to why he won.

You may not of agreed with the decision, but the decisions were close and controversial rather than some of Ottke's, which were indeed out and out bad.

 

watson eubank 1 was a robbery

 

Allot of people had it for Watson, I think I preferred Eubanks work but its been a while since I saw it