This doesnt have to be solely about decisions that YOU disagreed with, it can also be about decisions that you DID agree with but others did not, I`ll give 1 or 2 examples... morales barrera 1 (very close but I think it was correct.) DLH Mosely 2 (wrong decision, not that close either.) Leonard Hagler (Right decision.) Tito DLH (Wrong decision.) Ali Norton 2 (Right decision.) morales barrera 2 (Wrong decision, not that close either.) Lewis Holy 1 (Wrong decision, terrible judging & I wanted Holyfield to win aswell.) :good
Morales/MABI and II were both wrong IMO I had no problem with DLH/MosleyII and DLH/Trinidad and I am a big Oscar fan. I agree Ali/NortonII was fine As for Lewis/HolyfieldI I still do not see what the fuss was about, I had Lewis edging it 7-5, so taking into account human error, a draw was fine. I would be fuming if I was an American tax payer, to think my money was wasted on an investigation.
De La Hoya-Trinidad. Wrong. Whitaker-Chavez. Wrong. Whitaker-Ramirez I. Wrong. Barrera-Morales I. Wrong. Leonard-Hagler. Correct. Hopkins-Taylor I. Correct. Lewis-Holyfield I. Wrong. De La Hoya-Whitaker. Correct.
Alright , ive got - Sweetpea-Chavez , MAB-EM 1 and 2, Sturm-DLH, DLH-Mosley (dsgraceful imo), Lewis-Holyfield 1 , Spinks-Taylor, JMM-PAC, Taylor-B-Hop1 The controversial ones i though were right were - Taylor-B-Hop2 , Mayweather-Castillo1 , Jones-Tarver1 aswell
fenech-nelson I...I am a Nelson fan, but fenech won this going away! mancini-Camacho....No way did Camacho win this leonard-hearns II..This was Tommy's night! Chavez-Whitaker..I scored it a draw and don't see a robbery one way or the other DLH-Trinidad..had DLH winning by 1, but again not a robbery DLH-Whitaker..I agree DLH-Sturm...Sturm by 2 rds B-Hop vs Mercado I, Taylor I & II all wrong! Chavez vs taylor I..should not have been stopped, and Meldrick is CHAMP! DLH Mosley II ..again DLH comes out on the wrong side of decisions not the reverse that many portray Norton Ali III
Oscar De La Hoya's controversial decisions: Whitaker: I had it even Quartey: Been over this one too many times, Oscar got a gift. Trinidad: I had DLH ahead slightly Mosley II: I had DLH ahead slightly Sturm: I had it either 7-5 or 8-4 for Sturm, can't remember exactly. James Toney's controverisal decisions (some of them): Johnson: fair decision, Toney won it IMO Tiberi: Haven't seen it in years, but I remember thinking it was a terrible decision. McCallum I: Toney won it. McCallum II: Mike by a point on my card. Tough fight to score. Rahman: I had no problem with the draw. Most seemed to think Rahman deserved it, but Toney was landing clean shots himself. Peter I: Toney won this one. I never bothered to score the Griffin fights round-by-round, but I came away with the impression that Griffin got lucky both times.
I nominate one of "The Mothers of Close Decisions", and that would be Willie Pastrano over Harold Johnson back in 1963. Willie won the lightheavyweight crown with a paper-thin decision over Harold. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with the nod, and as a matter of fact I've seen the bout on film two or three times and I can't decide, primarily because it's the type of fight that fascinates me so much, and because I like both fighter so much. Duodenum understands, I'm sure. Those two guys were the cream of the crop, as far as smart, defensive, strategic chess player types, with Harold Johnson as the Master Technician, and Willie Pastrano as the artful dodger of lightheavies, who was a purists ideal of a boxer, the kind of guy who had, amd I quote, "a pathological aversion to getting hit". It may not rank up there with most fan's idea of a great and entertaining fight, with brutal, knuckle-busting blood and guts action with all that goes with it, but it was surely an afficianado's idea of the Art of Scientific Boxing, or the "Sweet Science", or whatever you want to call it.
Zab Judah vs. Rafael Pineda, which was a split decision victory for Zab. I had it a draw at 114-114. Judah winning rounds 1,2,4,6 and 7( 10-8 ). Pineda winning rounds 3,5,8,10,11 and 12. Round 9 being even.
Another controversial decision was Cory Spinks vs. Rafael Pineda. That's one I've yet to see but I've heard it could have gone either way before it was stopped prematurely becuase of a cut to Spinks. If Pineda had won 3 or 4 of the first seven rounds, you'd think he'd be favoured down the stretch there because he did have good stamina. Kind of puts the welterweight division of recent years into perspective when you have a 40 year old who at his best was a B level fighter taking two of the divisions' best to task.
