Controversial wins that you agreed with.

Emile Griffith-Dlck Tiger l
Willie Pastrano-Harold Johnson
Joe Calzaghe-Bernard Hopkins

 

Here is the second fight between Ali and Norton and the second fight between Ruben Olivares and Art Hafey. Both were split decisions for Ali and Olivares respectively with a bit of a ruckus thrown in from the press corps and audience. But these were two fights that I never saw the controversey. I had them both clear winners. California scoring of one point for a round, 2 if there is a knockdown and no points for an even round.

Round 1: Ali
Round 2: Ali
Round 3: Ali
Round 4: Ali
Round 5: Even
Round 6: Ali
Round 7: Norton
Round 8: Norton
Round 9: Ali
Round 10: Even
Round 11: Norton
Round 12: Ali

7-3-2 in rounds but 7-3 on California point system for Ali.

Round 1: Even
Round 2: Olivares
Round 3: Olivares
Round 4: Olivares
Round 5: Olivares
Round 6: Olivares
Round 7: Olivares
Round 8: Even (I think I scored this round even because Art was getting closer and I was getting embarrassed scoring all these for Ruben LOL)
Round 9: Olivares
Round 10: Hafey (scores a knockdown)
Round 11: Hafey
Round 12: Olivares

Total: 8-3 Olivares

 

Leonard vs Hagler
Michael Spinks vs Holmes the rematch

 

Disagree strongly that the Hart vs. Johnson decision was the right one. Nearly every source I've seen of the fight make note that Johnson outboxed Hart rather easily, but never pushed the issue much. You know their is an inherent bias going into a fight, when the ref specifically put emphasis on a criteria that a particular fighter isn't known for. Johnson was always known as a defensive safety first fighter, so when you make the winning criteria the exact opposite of how you fight... by proxy that means it already wasn't fair going in... so why would I side with that way of thinking?

Also disagree on the Walcott - Louis situation as we've discussed before. Saying perhaps Louis won seems funny when the vast majority of evidence states otherwise. You mention one report saying Louis out landed Walcott, but that same report said Walcott made Joe look foolish and outboxed him. It doesn't do much good to barely outland your foe (I've seen the numbers say the opposite though), when you're made to look foolish and get dropped twice, while never dropping your foe. Slightly out-landing your foe doesn't do much good when that is the case. You know and I know, that the majority of evidence points to a Walcott win, not the opposite.

 

This fight seems to be one that divided opinion.

Aggression was generally favored a lot more in scoring back then, to the extent that many referred didn't even score jabs.

I think that we have to be open minded to the idea, that Hart might have had a credible case.

The majority of ringsiders had it for Walcott, that much is true, but there are caveats to that.

Forcing the fight was favored more in scoring back then.

Louis clearly forced the fight, and when you add the fact that he landed more punches, then his case starts to look credible for the day.

I am not strictly coming out in favor of Hart or Louis here, or Galento for that matter.

I am saying that these fights were not as clear cut as many assumed!

 

Ali-Norton 3, even on rounds on many cards going into the 15th and using Mercante's very respected method of scoring, each three minutes separately, Ali landed light jabs in the first minute, Norton threw one that missed, Ali landed more light jabs and a right hand in the second minute, Norton landed one jab, for the first 30 seconds of the third minute this pattern continued until Ken unloaded for the last half a minute, backing up and landing to the head and body hard, enough to win the last minute of the round but having given up the first two minutes the round went to Ali and with it the win.

 

Only one I can think of is Mosley vs. De La Hoya 2.

 

Leonard - Hagler
Holmes - Witherspoon (mildy controversial)
Ali - Young

 

I'm going to leave the Louis - Walcott fight alone, as we've covered much of that previously.

However the Hart fight, in that fight it looks like a blatant bias going into the fight. He specifically mentions Johnson safety first style, and comes up with a specific criteria that is the opposite of his style. Doesn't that look like a clear bias going in, and that same person with a clear bias, is also the man rendering the verdict. Something doesn't seem odd about that on its face? I'd be like a ref telling May before the fight that the criteria he's going to be using for this fight is aggression and who's willing to go toe to toe. There would be a scandal if that happened. That is essentially what happened here, and yet you're essentially agreeing with an inherent bias going in and giving credence to that. This makes no sense to me.

 

Leonard vs. Hagler.. Hagler could have won that by fighting smarter. He was not great at slower paces. He just was not in his comfort zone. He was better after faster paces where his stamina which was good would help him as well as his counterpunching But he comes out right handed and loses the first two rounds and then the momentum goes to Ray.. And Chavez vs. Taylor. It was not Steele's role to be time keeper. Taylor was finished and for Steele to give him the fight because there were so many seconds left would have been worse than anything.

 

I thought Jimmy deserved the Norton fight; counterpunchers typically don't sit well with judges and the Vegas ref said he would have given it to Young.

 

Montell Griffin-James Toney anyone? Only scored it once but Toney's work rate cost him the fight for me.

I actually scored it closer than all 3 judges (116-112x2 and 119-110)
That last card was a travesty though.

 

Pacquiao vs JMM 2 and 3
Second fight PAC clearly edged it. Third fight could have been either or.