Biggest robberies of all time

Fury vs Wilder 1

 

a lot of these are not robberies but just close fights. for something to be the "biggest robbery, " shouldn't it be an obvious UD for one person going either draw or to the other person?

like why have leonard hagler on there (not a robbery at all) but not leonard hearns 2 (even SRL says Tommy won)? where's sweet pea vs chavez? Bradley vs Pacman is way more of a robbery than Bradly vs Provodnikov.

holy lewis 1 and holy valuev were robberies, that is true. the rest of this list is dubious and seems like just times you were mad about a decision.

 

• 
  
  

  ---

  
  

  Click here to register a FREE forum account and REMOVE ADS

  
  
  

Pernell Vs Ramirez
And also Vs chavez
Fury Vs mcdermott 1
Marquez Vs Pacquiao 3
Miguel Vasquez Vs O'Hara Davies n Lewis ritson
Ottke Vs Reid

 

Golovkin-Dereyvenchenko

 

It’s more than 20 years, but the most outrageous robbery ever is still Juan Coggi-Eder Gonzalez 1

It’s bad enough to win 8 of 12 rounds and lose the decision. It’s even worse when you really win by knockout or win by DQ on three separate occasions, but the ref/timekeeper rules than you didn’t, and then you lose the fight.

This content is protected

 

1. Roy Jones Jr's gold medal olympic fight.
2. BS ref stoppage of Meldrick Taylor vs JCC. Taylor was robbed of his victory.

 

Pretty much. Leonard-Hagler is like the most evenly debated controversial decision ever. I get the impression if you polled 100 big time boxing fans/historians and asked who won, 45 would say Ray, 45 would say Marvin, and 10 would have it even. I would be among those 10.

Golovkin-Canelo 2 is another very close fight l that I scored 114-114. Not a robbery at all.

 

I beat Mike Tyson many times before I beat Super Macho Man. All I did was use that code and fight him over and over again until I could finally beat him.

 

Foreman v Briggs
Holyfield v Valuev
Holyfield: Gold medal Los Angeles
Holmes v Spinks I and II
Pearson v K. Taylor I

 

Debatable decisions are not robberies.

Just because your favourite fighter/s lost a decision does not make it a robbery which I sense is the agenda behind this thread. Golovkin lost a close fight to Canelo same as Lomachenko lost to Salido in a close fight, that's what the history books will quite rightly show and all the bitterness, crying and shouts of robbery ain't changing it.

 

Lol, close fights are now “robberies”

 

Whitaker Chavez sr

 

Fury Wilder & Fury McDermott 1 were not robberies.

One judge giving it wide to Wilder was corruption, Alejandro Rochin. The fight itself Fury 114-112 was an average scorecard. If the fight was ruled in Wilders favour then we can start talking robbery.

McDermott the Referee giving it to Fury is just a stupid system that changed consequently. Again a close fight many giving it to John by a couple of points.

Marquez Vs Pacquiao 3 is one of the first robberies I saw as a boxing fan where my heart sank into my stomach I felt so bad for Marquez. Then Bradley Pacquiao 1.

 

- Every Sven Ottke fight - no, Ottke was a good boxer, deserved most if not all of his wins
- sturm vs odlh - yes, robbery
- ggg vs canelo 1 and 2 - first one yes, second was close though
- ward vs kovalev 1 - yes, clearly a robbery
- leonard vs hagler - close fight
- holyfield vs lewis 1 - yes, one of the worst robberies ever
- lomachenko vs salido - yes, referee Lawrence Cole should be banned from boxing
- lara vs canelo - no, Lara ran too much, too reluctant to engage
- Pacquiao vs horn - yes
- Bradley vs prudnenikov - yes
- huck against a lot of guys (especially lebedev) - Lebedev fight yes, and Huck was dirty and should have lost a few others by DQ
- holyfield vs valuev - no, that was a myth created by commentators watching from a screen in the US, people who were actually at the fight including Americans thought it was a fair decision
- miranda vs abraham - not really, and it was settled in the rematch anyway