Controversial decisions you think the judges got right.

Morales/Barrera 1
Leonard/Hagler

 

Luis Rivera scored the Hopkins vs Dawson fight 114-114, which was a bit controversial at the time. But I for one thought he got it right.
Dawson had fairly limited success in the first half and I had it a draw myself. Everyone else pretty much had it a shutout for Dawson simply due to his activity and Hopkins being so passive. In reality Dawson barely landed a clean punch in the first rounds.
Dawson then got Hopkins to come to him and started landing some beautiful counters. It was a boring, but interesting fight between an intelligent athletic boxer and a savvy veteran.

 

Pac vs Maq 3

 

Horn Pacquiao

 

Yes I agree with you totally on this one I thought Horn made it his type of fight and roughed up Pacquiao and won a legit decision.

I never understood all the complaining about this right being a robbery.

I think @CST80 if he don't mind me quoting him also agrees that Horn won this fight.

 

I seem to always score controversial fights the same way as the judges.

I had it 115-114 for Canelo in the GGG rematch (first round a draw) and I also scored the first fight a draw.
I had Horn slightly beating Pacquiao -- feel upset about the reffing, but as a judge you can't deduct points that the ref doesn't, so Horn benefited from a lot of his momentum generated from his dirty fighting that Pac couldn't deal with.
Beterbiev vs Bivol I had slightly in favor of Beterbiev, but honestly thought it could go either way, but shouldn't be controversial the way it is.

I think Wilder vs Fury 1 was a fair draw. People don't talk about this one as much anymore because Wilder got blasted in the two rematches to follow, but people have convinced themselves that Fury deserved to win this fight -- but he didn't. This was a low activity fight where neither fighter landed much too differentiate themselves per round. I think this is an example of narratives are powerful in boxing public's interpretation of how a fight should be scored -- the master boxer who is making a career comeback versus a no-technique windmill power puncher -- It's obvious who people think would and should win on points if a round's close, but judges aren't swayed by that as much and will look at the work for what it is, and in this case, I think they couldn't have gotten it more correct thanks to the two late knockdowns.

I had Haney-Loma 115-113 and it honestly shouldn't be remotely controversial, but unfortunately, it is.
Though I have a question for a lot of you, a lot of people are now saying "Teofimo clearly beat Lomachenko", but I remember regularly getting into internet slapfights because there were a lot of people trying to paint that as a controversial decision, am I the only one who noticed the narrative on this fight changed the moment Haney had his "controversial" win over Lomachenko?

Most controversial decisions in Boxing I feel shouldn't be controversial at all, and It's just loud cazzies that tend to shake up the room of discussion. Boxing judges get it right more often than not (Not to say they don't also get it wrong a lot, too), and in all of the above cases, I feel controversy is unwarranted.

 

Any loma fight. Actually you have to be a hell of a nut hugger to think that those fights are controversial.

 

Beterbiev vs Bivol
Maybe also Hrgovic vs Zhang

 

Beterbiev - Bivol: I was actually surprised this was controversial. Bivol was great early but later his boxing was very much in spurts and the way he fought off the back foot later on just didn't look good - seemed in survival mode in latter part of fight and never really looked in control.

Whyte Chisora 1: Haven't watched in ages, but people complained about this. I thought Whyte was landing much cleaner crisper shots while Chisora was kind of mauling and smothering.

Canelo GGG 2: While the first fight was a shameful robbery, Canelo adjusted and won this one legitimately. That said, he'd already aged GGG out a bit in first fight, so GGG was even more past prime here. The whole GGG trilogy leaves a bad taste for the combination of robberies and ageing out, but I can't deny that Canelo did well against a past-prime GGG here.

 

a hill i will also die on. kept moving to his right landed awkward double back hands then forced a half clinch. smouthered manny's work and didnt give him an exit route. and if MP did get under the hook he slammed into horns shoulder. also never swarmed in or stood off timed his movement to stay safe. which meant that manny couldnt strafe with his 1-2-1-2-3 to his right hand side past the guard like he did against most of his post 130lbs opponants. and dart off his combinations while getting outmuscled. it was ugly but it was tactics of the first paragraph. close but clear 7 rounds for Horn.

sidenote: I remember saying this and getting called for 'british empire' bias ?!?! Cousrin...to say i am bias because australia was a former colony is so much cope. remember the Maine to hell with spain. when australia already had its own government and statehood, american troops were sitting in the middle manila as the U.S. invaded and colonised the phillipines. who is here with the empire bias now?

 

Beterbiev v Bivol.
JMM v PAC 2
PAC v Horn
Froch v Dirrell
Williams v Martinez

 

Hrgovic v Zhang is another one.

 

115-113 mosley dlh 2

 

Leonard Hagler
Loma Salido
Loma Teofimo
Horn pacquaio was a toss up for me


For record I had Loma beating Haney. Textbook Effective Aggression

 

The only decision I've seen that I personally feel is irreconcilable is Williams v Lara.

For me any other decision I've seen can atleast be argued.