It seems most controversial fights still have a minority that see them the other way(outside of those with an agenda even). It would probably be a lot shorter a thread to name the ones you've never seen anyone say "i actually think so and so did enough you know..." As far as the big fights go, i don't think i've ever seen anyone say Holyfield deserved the draw with Lewis(that i didn't think weren't just trolling), Chavez beat Whitaker(sup boxed). For the slightly more obscure, i don't recall ever reading anyone say Famechon beat Harada
I also scored the fight for Chavez by a point. The rounds which whitaker won he tended to win big, whereas the rounds Chavez was winning were tighter. Whittaker hit Chavez more in the rounds he won than Chavez did in the rounds HE won. But you still only get 1 point for the round. This gave the overall impression that Chavez had been beaten, but when we add up the scorecards, it was very tight. Some of those tight rounds were very close, too close for any real argument either way. Definitely not a robbery either way.
Huge robbery imo. Walcott made Louis look basic. But true greats take the immediate rematch and Joe over turned the bad decision in spectacular fashion.
dinovelvet.....if it had been a huge robbery i would have said so. it wasn't, and the reasons i gave explain why it wasn't. i listened to this on the radio with my family, and we were shocked when the decision was made. the radio broadcast was dramatic and from that we thought walcott was robbed. watching the fight films in the movie theatre lessened my feeling but i still thought walcott won by not as much as the broadcast. reading about the fight i still had walcott the winner, but not a huge robbery as it has come to be determined over the years. nat fleischer had louis winning, as did some other boxing writers. so..close and disputed is the correct description.
I have often heard that the Kuniaki Shibata-Ernesto Marcel 15 round Draw was a robbery and that Marcel deserved the decision. Today I sat down and watched an excellent fight between the two. And after 15 rounds I scored it 69-68 for Marcel on the 5 point must system employed. However, it was difficult to determine what may have happened in the 6th round - not knowing the language. The ref chastises Marcel for butting and it looks like he is penalizing Marcel but holding up two fingers. So is he penalizing him? Is he penalizing him 2 points like I have heard from some sources or is he not penalizing and possibly giving him a second warning, thus the two fingers? I read the Ring Mag report and nothing is mentioned, but I did enough research to come across the fact he was penalized just one point in the 6th round. As a result, I have it 68-68 a draw with the deduction. Some of these rounds are very tight and can go either way, so I won't argue with anyone scoring it for Marcel. Like I said, a terrific fight and the 12th round alone is like something out of a Rocky movie. Well worth watching.
I have watched this fight over and over again. I like them both equally no favourite . I scored it , tried looking with a different perspective. there were many extremely close rounds. but I always came out with the same winner.Zarate, close or closer
Sharkey - Schmeling 2 for me. I've only watched extended highlights (not seen every round) but I thought that for all Schmeling's aggression Jack made him miss and countered well all night. Definitely close but not - on the basis of what I've seen - a robbery by any stretch.
I strongly disagree. From what I've seen after the first few rounds Schmeling dominates every exchange. Presses the attack and especially rounds 10-15 Sharkey offers nothing but a feeble jab that often falls short in return.
I agree with Leonard vs Hearns 2. Toney vs Tiberi and Holmes vs Witherspoon I never saw as robberies....