Close, great, action packed fights do not equal to robberies

Agreed. Some people really need to learn the meaning of the word robbery.

When one fighter wins 10 of 12 rounds but loses on the scorecards, that's a robbery.

When a bout is close and has tough rounds to score and could go 7-5 either way, it's not a robbery. It's someone having a different opinion from you on who won 1 or 2 rounds.

 

Yeah, it's pretty tiresome, I know. Not the kind of thing Pongsaklek Wonjongkam would approve, I know that much...

















Pongsaklek Wonjongkam.

 

:good good post OP

 

totally agree. sad thing is, these discussions overshadow what are high quality fights. if fighters box real competition instead of tomato cans this stuff just happens - it's something good. masochistic behaviour, stupid of some to ruin this experience.

froch beats ward in a highly competitive fight. taylor then nearly beats him, but gets sparked. in another close fight, froch also beats dirrell before getting his ass handed to him by kessler (in another close and GREAT night for boxing).
now kessler, he got totally outclassed by ward. some may say styles make fights and act like it's all math and obvious in the first place - don't, accept the roulette it truly is. continue: dirrell outboxes abraham, who.. no. this story won't find an end, but you get the idea.. this tournament is as good as i expected it to be. and having bute, waiting on the outside for it to be over.. this just adds to the experience. where will his position be after the tournament is over? it's all great.. and overall, there was not one real robbery yet. a 117 - 111 scorecard last night is edgy, but it was a very hard fight to judge; i had it 115 - 114 kessler. and even though i had dirrell winning against froch, froch winning is definetely acceptable.

 

I definitely agree for the most part, but some close fights ARE robberies. De La Hoya-Strum is a perfect example, and so was Martinez-Williams.

Now if you're talking about "close" fights that some people consider robbery, like Pacquiao-Marquez I and II for example, that's a different story...Marquez didn't get robbed either time. Had he not gotten dropped 4 times, then yeah, it would have been blatant robbery.

 

respect, to this thread guys..

cool - you are so right.

 

Martinez Williams is a much less disputed decision than the Marquez/Pac fights, I think.

It draws a lot of heat for the one absurd card, but a lot of people feel the right guy won in Martinez v. Williams and calling it a robbery is a really big stretch, especially with a lot of tough to call rounds.

 

:thumbsup

 

Only ******ed people that thought Martinez was robbed in the Williams fight. Martinez even admit he thought the fight could go either way.

 

some people need to know the definition of some words because they clearly haven't got a clue. it also does my head in with all this robbery bull**** when a fighter loses a very close fight.

 

I thought Martinez won against Williams but it was in America with three American judges, against a seriously overhyped HBO fighter in Williams. He's the next Jermaine Taylor.

I do agree for the most part but it's been mentioned over a million times on here, robbery is a boxing buzz word and we'll just have to get used to it.

 

all of them were just close fights, in my opinion. except for sturm / dlh.

as for marquez.. the john fight is very hard to call for me. i have marquez winning this by a landslide. i know of qualified people who saw it the other way - i just can't. to me this is a borderline robbery, but not as clear as sturm / dlh.. or whitaker / chavez for example.
pac/marquez on the other hand.. i had pac winning the first one closely, the second one i gave to marquez. both decisions are alright to me. tough fights to score.

 

I was going to start a thread but if everytime we feel screwed by the judging...we should give it up if they were a few close clear fights in anight and the judges got it right (117-111...a little wide, but I think they got it right...and, yeah, we should expect it)