'Robbed' is to easily used....

Sorry guys.
This was just a fight where the scorecards could have went either way.:bart

 

You see, I scored that to Matthysse by 1 point. NOT a "robbery" to me. A "robbery" to me implies a gap of 5 or 6 points which somehow goes the other way.

 

How about shafted?

 

the whole way i see it though, is that in an event where the guy gets a decision who didn't deserve it, then it is a robbery. Yes the fight was with in one or two points but why should the guy who lost get the decision?

I still see what you mean though, these close fights are no where as bad as something like Williams-Lara.

 

And its bad for boxing as well, it gives the sport a bad image and when there is an actual robbery it will not be taken as seriously. The "boy who cried wolf" scenario.

 

True

 

People saying Pacquiao - Marquez III was a robbery bug the **** out of me.

It was a close fight in which Marquez lost as much as Pacquaio won, by conceding some very close rounds through bad corner advice.

 

Exactly!

People dont know to differentiate between competitive and close.

Khan-Peterson was both competitive and close.

All three Marquez-Pac fights might have been competitive, but close they were not, thus why you would consider those fights robberies.


Newsflash, a fighter that is competitve can be viewed at as a robbery.
Competing does'nt equate to winning rounds.

 

:deal :thumbsup

 

At least you could show some solid points why you could say that it was robberies because I can't see it from here.. :hey

 

Don't talk ****.

If the guy who should have won doesn't get the decision then he's been robbed. Simple as that. So it's not an overused term

 

No, if all rounds apart from like what 3 rounds were absolutely clear for Campillo and there's no way they could have gone to Cloud how is that not a robbery? Yesterday a lot of rounds could have been given to either of the fighters.