I agree. It's unreasonable interpretation which I think makes it a robbery. If 100 people scored a fight, say GGG vs Canelo II. And 20 of those people scored that fight for Canelo, ten a draw and 70 score it for GGG, I'd say that's a robbery. The vast majority having for the loser is what I'd call a robbery. Or if I personally have it wide and can't see a win. If you have to stretch and give every edge to a fighter to make the decision seem reasonable, then I think that's basically admitting it was a bad decision. IE: a robbery is a fight that shouldn't be scored for a fighter. Not one that can't.
Your criteria for a robbery in theory is the correct way to view a robbery. However I think the fact that the house fighter often gets the call in fights that were close but where they may have appeared to lose is a robbery as well: As I don’t believe they get the call if the money was not behind them. Examples Axel Schulz vs Foreman Kovalev vs Ward Canelo vs Triple G Sturm vs De La Hoya and so forth. Not all of these are as bad as say Lewis vs Holyfield 1 but I do think the loser was short changed of their moment
Are you suggesting that media opinion on Louis Goddy, was remotely like Golovkin Canelo? If Godoy had been crowned champion, then I am certain, that it would have been the single most controversial decision, in boxing history!
Imagine if Billy and young George Crowcroft were to meet up. Good luck to anyone who thought he could tell either of these two anything about Boxing.
It's a shame that there isn't a copy of this fight in its entirety. From what we see here it's desperately close. I remember reading that American writers disliked Godoy's low ducking style, seeing it as negative. I suppose they wanted Arturo to stand up straight so Joe could hit him ! It was virtually impossible to get a World Title out of the States in those days.
I seem to be in a distinct minority on this board, but I see, off the limited footage available, Louis winning decisively in rounds. I score a fight on leather landed and Louis got the best of that. Godoy's low ducking and crouching confused Louis and gave him trouble, but I don't score on low ducking. For me, Godoy just didn't land enough punches in most rounds. It is hard to say how biased the American media were toward Louis. Or not. He was so dominant that heavyweight boxing was somewhat dormant from a lack of box-office challengers. Godoy pulling a near upset provided a live contender. Godoy being "robbed" was the basis of the hype for the return. While I think there were often home town decisions against foreign fighters, such as Sharkey over Schmeling, I honestly don't see the nods for Louis over Farr or Godoy among them. These comments by "Daniel" of the Pittsburgh Press are typical: "Godoy did nobly last night." "There wasn't even a scintilla of a doubt that Louis had won and Godoy had lost, and that the champion had retained his title by a good margin." "As we scored the fight, Louis won ten rounds, and Godoy three, with two even." Another ringside writer had these comments. "Louis was virtually unmarked when he left the ring." Louis "contented himself with trying to straighten up the challenger with close right and left uppercuts to the chin." while being shoved physically against the ropes. Some writers named Godoy "The Wild Goat of the Andes." Boxing scoring is subjective, and there will be disagreements, but I stand on thinking Louis won this one clearly.
I don't reckon any of the rest of us would stand a chance against you pair. Hey relax Billy. That wasn't patronising. That was respect. Ask any of us regular posters. Ex amateurs ex pro's, ( Bound to be a few on here ), all of us love you and George. And we respect your knowledge and point of view. Now, bully me again and.... I'll call the mod's I will.
Can you name those Quite a few gift decisions? We all know Walcott won their first bout, this fight was close and it would have been fair to have it slightly to one or the other or a draw, what other fights are you speaking of?
