Over the past couple of years there have been many fights that have been close but not a robbery, as everyone likes to say. This year alone we have Cotto Vs Clottey, Froch Vs Dirrell, Paulie Vs Diaz, Williams Vs Martinez, Ersei Vs Frogomeni, Berto Vs Collazo...... The problem is, the "name" fighter in every case is getting the decision. It's all very well saying it could have gone either way but at this moment in time it never does go "either way". It now seems to me that regardless of who's the champ etc, you have to win convincingly to get a decision against a name fighter. The exception to this rule in recent times was DLH, who I think judges were worried about being cast as favourable to because of his big stature within the sport. Can anyone else think of a time when the "name" fighter was on the wrong end of a close decision?? And is it annoying anyone else??
This is true. I also think the contention that Diaz was the 'name fighter' against Malignaggi or that Froch was against Dirrell is slightly dubious. They were both the home fighter which may have had an impact. But home advantage exists in all sports.
You do have a point. Often the complaint is with the clearly despicable judging i.e. 118-110 for Diaz or 117-110 for Williams. In any close fight, neither fighter should feel robbed if they lose, they should have won more convincingly. Of course Funeka clearly won his fight so it was a robbery as he was not given the title. Osca did lose some bad desicions (Tito and Mosley II) but was also giftted the fight with Sturm, so it works both ways.
Point-taken Add Funeka-Guzman to that list. He was beaten convincingly enough that he couldn't get the W but he wasn't getting the L either. Nowadays you don't have to TAKE the belt from the champ without question, you have to take the Decision from a "star" fighter through knockout or Ass-whooping to get it to go your way
I didn't add Guzman-Funeka or Martinez-Cintron as they were actual robberies.....not close fights. I had Erdei-Frag a draw.
It used to be the champion that had this advantage, now it's the name fighter. It's known as "pshycological subjegation" or some ****. Consciously, officals believe they are there to enforce and even playing field (we hope). Sub-consciously, the beleive that all things being equal the best fighter should win, and like all human beings these people will have opinions about who that should be before the fight starts. And sub-consciously, for most of them that will be the name fighter. That's the theory. Is it a *****? Sure. But it's something that's been in the sport for as long as there have been proffessional judges (a step implimented in part because of the supposedly horrific Flowers-Walker card). The definition of "a close fight but not a robbery" is, people would have been bitching witht he decision going either way. I'll live with that.
