In Sharkey vs. Schmeling 2, Sharkey actually walked across the ring (after the fight, but before the Decision was announced), and congratulated Schmeling on his "win" (according to two family members, who were in attendance, and seated near Schmeling's corner). The rest is, as they say, History. (If there was some kind of fix, perhaps Sharkey was not in on it beforehand?)
yeah, and I think Valuev's gigantic size too had played role. He really is very large. 7 ft 320-332 lbs giant.
Yep, and i had Lopez winning by 2 points. The majority of boxing fans and other respected websites also had Gonzalez beating Estrada by 2 points, 115-113 the same way that i had it. Scoring is subjective but sometimes in a close round a clean jab, or even a great slip of a punch can decide the round for me. Defense has alot to do with scoring, not judt being overly aggressive trying to make it look like youre scoring when in reality youre actually not. Alot of people on here score ineffective aggression over, clean defense and technique. But for me if a close fight is actually "CLOSE", I NEVER consider it a robbery, even if i dont agree with who got the nod. A robbery to me is for example: Casamayor vs Santa Cruz in which casamayor legit won maybe 2-3 rounds tops.
I had it a draw. Upon rewatching, I saw 7-5 as acceptable (for Lopez). 8-4 a bit of a stretch, but within reason. I could not see a way to score it for Loma. So the decision was fair, except for one judge who had a crazy score, if I remember. I agree with 007's point earlier. A lot more rounds should be scored even. If one guy doesn't plainly win a round, score it even. Another possible solution...five judges, and a fighter is only awarded a round when four of the five (or all five) agree. Assuming no corruption or serious incompetence on the part of the judges, this would render a statistically more sound decision. A bit extravagant maybe, but maybe for title fights, at least.
Ringsiders definitely see (and hear) fights in a different way than tv viewers. But I wouldn't necessarily agree that they always have a better vantage point. With dozens of cameras and slo-mo replays in use, I have a better view of the World Cup final from my sofa than anyone at the game, regardless of where he is seated. The parallel is not exact. The boxing venue is a lot smaller, but still, I will see stuff that one or more judges won't. Admittedly, they might get a better sense of the fight, being at ringside, but I have little doubt that there are times when the viewers have an overall better and more accurate take on how things went down. How else could you account for the Pac-Bradley (1) decision, or Lewis-Holyfield (1) ? Still, as you point out, fights are scored from ringside, so rightfully or wrongfully, the tv verdict doesn't really matter. Except sometimes, in the verdict of history.
Both make sense. We all love to choose sides. Ima fury AJ n wilder fan i call it like i see it. Somethin was off about furys gloves. Fury is an amazing talent and im a fan but something wreaked badly about that. Robbery the old definition was mob based where they knew who was winning before the fight. Sometimes ina fight crazy **** happens both tysons touched canvas. Teo didnt beat loma that easily. Loma tried a strategy that didnt benefit him and teo brought it in round 12. It should be a draw. But the same reason i give ward the win ovet kov the first time. Ward came back like a champ the 2nd half of the fight. Thats what a champion does he battles adversity and comes back to own it. It wasnt a robbery it was close is alp perception tho what did u watch. Also what did u really pay attention too also. Does this ref score more for aggression or for defense. Perception is reality. But us true boxing fans know the deal usually. Then ur fav fighter is always biased. Hagler leonard. I could mever pick sides. Love is good too but reality sometimes is skewed
when someone stick a gun in your head and ask for your belongings or someone broke into your home while you are away or asleep...
Lewis / Holyfield 1 comes to mind as a robbery for me. I've seen too many fights to count that were close, but the winner won every round of the fight. It happens. If you try to "find" a round for the lesser fighter that's bias. Very few rounds are really even. Even rounds are usually scored by people that don't know how to correctly judge a fight. Being a live underdog seems to be worth a couple points these days. When he doesn't get blown out, but is competitive in a losing effort cries of robbery abound. I rarely see robberies.
Massive disparity between judges is a sign that there were a lot of hard to score rounds that many people interpret as a sign of robbery. It's because of how passionate some fans are when it comes to how they believe rounds should be scored, many of whom try and set the guidelines for which rounds are debatable and which aren't, or who can win certain rounds and who can't, when in reality every round is debatable and open for discussion and it's up to you to support your card. I agree about there needing to be more 10-10 rounds, as many rounds are close and hard to choose who won when there are reasons for each fighter. There's also an argument that 10-10 rounds are more justifiable when both guys land a lot of punches as opposed to both guys doing next to nothing. Part of the problem is that in recent decades, judges are instructed to choose a winner every round, whereas in the old days there were many even rounds, sometimes even a majority of even rounds, which is a completely different way to score matches than forcing yourself to choose a winner every round. At the same time it's tough because there are cases where a fighter is truly narrowly winning close round after close round and by looking to score rounds 10-10 you could be keeping a fighter in a match who really should be losing. I think you should always try to find a winner but be mindful that if it's too close score it even. But to remember that if there's another close round later on that maybe the other guy slightly edged, maybe score that even as well so that you don't score 2 rounds even that the same fighter may have narrowly edged. It requires a lot of mental balancing. The goal is to score a match as fairly as possible, and even more than that, however you score the rounds, to try to ensure that the fighter who performed better in more rounds ends up the winner, outside of any knockdowns. Also if you're scoring a lot of 10-10 rounds, if there's a knockdown you have to think more about how close the round was outside of the knockdown, and whether the knockdown round should be 10-8 or 10-9 which maybe you wouldn't even think about if you force yourself to pick a winner of every round, so a knockdown would automatically become a 10-8 round so the knockdown carries weight since all the other rounds are 10-9. There's a lot to think about when scoring a match, and I agree that a 10-10 should always be on the table as a possible score, but at the same time in most rounds you can usually find something that catches your eye that convinces you either fighter won it and if you rely too heavily on 10-10s you can find yourself scoring the majority of the rounds even, and end up looking for clear separation for someone to win a round which is really a fundamentally different way of scoring than the current standard way.
I call a close fight a robbery when; a) it's logically impossible to score it for the guy that gets the nod. What I mean by that is when in let's say a 12 rounder, fighter A wins 6 rounds clear including a KD, fighter B wins 4 rounds clearly and 2 are a tossup. In that case scores can vary from 116-111 fighter A to as close as 114-113... If then the other guy gets the win, it's clear it's some fishy shirt. b) If later rounds are scored by the judges against the consensus for home/featured fighters. What we've seen multiple times (see Kovalev vs Ward I for instance) is that judges score a point of no return round for the other fighter. Late in the fight when for instance it's 6 rounds to 3 or 4, and the 10th or 11th round is again clear for the visiting fighter making it 7-3 or 4... then suddenly 2 or 3 judges score that round for the homie... at that point it's already a robbery or at least an attempted robbery, no matter what happens next. c) the referee misses multiple fouls or suffered knockdows, or deducts points or gives bogus knockdowns or even a KO against the visitor. The referee's actions having a major impact on the outcome of the fight, like Agbeko vs Mares I for instance. Lowblow knockdowns or even knockouts being counted (check out Dirrell vs Engel for instance, which wasn't a close fight), 9 and fast counts, super slow counts, fouls counted as KD's, clinching rewarded with warnings against the guy being clinched, muliple headbutts ignored, cuts with an obvious and clear cause called wrong, again in favor of the homie.
I blame it on these new fangled rules, if we still had London Prize Ring Rules all these judges robberies would never happen, 'come up to scratch' if you cannot you lose, simple and resulting in a definitive result. 'Elf 'n' Safety" might disapprove though.
