Folks, Okay, to make a long story short, the TWO biggest fights to my liking that featured QUESTIONABLE scoring is / were, "Ali-Norton 3" and "Camacho-Duran 1" both on closed-circuit and PPV TV....... OH! "Spinks-Holmes 2" of 1986 also stunk like a fart, as well... JESUS! Alright, let's cut through the cheese quickly here......... Here we go: 1. Ali vs. Norton 3.... I favored Ali by a **** hair... That 15th round rally secured the deal for Ali, in my book..... Bedlam... I care LESS! Ali won... 2. Spinks vs. Holmes 2....... We all know that Holmes was politically shafted by 2 of the 3 judges............ Holmes really won........ Screw the two blind judges..... Joe Cortez was the ONLY judge who saw it right with Holmes winning 144 to 141 on points....... 3. Camacho-Duran 1........... Horrible decision in Camacho's favor......... I needed a bottle of Pepto Bismol immediately following the decision of 1996.... I'm still pissed about that verdict......... :hatpatsch:shock: MR.BILL
Yeah, Ali beat Norton in their third fight alright. There were about a half dozen people in a recent thread who all scored it clearly for Norton.
I'm one of the few who gave it to Ali based on that last round rally by sticking and moving while Norton chased air and swated flies....... But I am still upset about the decisions that went against Holmes in 1986 and the nod against Duran in 1996 against opponents "Spinks and Camacho." :twisted: MR.BILL
Holmes v Spinks 1 broke my heart. I think Larry was a little under-prepared for that one. But the second fight he won and they stole it from him. I stopped loving boxing for a while after that. Legion
Being in my mid teens during Ali Norton 3 and also the Ali-Jimmy Young fight that I heard the term to win the championship you have to really have to beat the champ and since I was an Ali fan I was happy he got the wins. However I soon realized this rule does not always apply. Holmes did beat Spinks, Hagler beat Antifermo and Duran beat Camacho. OH, the naivety of youth.
YES! I have determined over the years that "Crooked" or "Bogus" scoring stems from what fighter is the money man and who has the contacts and contracts to generate more money for the future..... The judges know beforehand who the promoter favors and likes prior to the opening bell of a meaningful fight...... Most judges are politically corrupt..... :hat MR.BILL:deal
I watched both Holmes Spinks fights on video after being told they were robberies. After scoring each round, I had Spinks winning both fights by small margins. The second fight was very close and could easily be scored either way, or a draw. Neither decision was a "robbery" or a fix. Those losses are 100% Larry Holmes' fault, he was simply not aggressive enough in either fight (a bit like Hagler vs Leonard). He should have tried to knock Spinks the f*ck out, use his size to his advantage, instead of just sticking the jab out at a smaller, more mobile opponent. Spinks fought the fight Billy Conn did against Joe Louis, except he fought it for all 15 rounds instead of getting dumb and going for a KO.
You know the Holmes-Spinks fights remind me of the Hopkins-Taylor fights a bit. Hopkins and Holmes just weren't really aggressive enough to really win. They did a little more in the early rounds of the second fights but just not enough to win. Ahhh I'll look at Holmes-Spinks fights and Taylor-Hopkins fights again but I feel like the younger fighter won in the four fights. Kinda creepy that both Michael Spinks and Jermain Taylor both suffered their first loss and ko loss just two years after beating a great again...