Great robberies of the sport, why is there no overturning a bad decision?

when a guy wins convincingly, 9-3 no close rounds 10-2 something like that even a very clear 8-4. Look I think hopkins pascal was a bad decision but not a robbery. Huck lebedev was a robbery in my opinion but still to close. a fight like holyfield vs lewis was a robbery as was chavez vs whitaker.

 

Chavez-Whitaker is the closest and perhaps Holy-Lewis. The others? No way it was robberies.

 

Could you explain that first part, what is not to like about it, that should not matter a kd is apoint gone even if he knocks him down 7 times for example.
I think it is a very important part of the scoring because it has a big influence on the eventual score

 

those were the only two I gave of a example for clear robberies but I still dont think decisions should be changed, only to a nc to using bad substances or if a fights gets stopped in 3 and goes to the cards that should be a nc.

 

As for the topic I know there have been instances where the governing body has decided that there should be a rematch. Very rare though.

 

To me this video below is the Daddy of them all.
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hD91QpMH5no[/ame]

 

Not only that he gave him a long long count, he stop the fight in the middle of the beating, the manager was holding Coggi preventing him fro falling and the round was 30 seconds short, and the WBA or WBC I don't know which one never did $hit about the fight.

 

Just like any other major sport they don't overturn bad calls that have decided games and even decided who advance. Look at all the football, baseball, and basketball bad calls. Even the NBA ref who was imprison for controlling games and placing bets on games made the Lakers advance the past the Sacramento Kings he referee for. Baseball umpires mess all the time and even cost pitchers perfect games recently by a simple bad call. You just have to move on and I guess boxing is no exception.

 

In recent years I only remember one decision being investigated and changed. That was the McKart/Marquez fight in March 2008. It was a nice fight where both these old war horses looked quite good. In spite of the fact that it was very close, all 3 judges had it wide for Raul Marquez. They took forever to announce the decision, and Bronco's dad later discovered that 2 judges had actually changed their cards after the fight was over. When all parties were forced to re-tally their cards, the fight came out a draw.

At the end of the day it made absolutely no difference. McKart couldn't find a fight, and sat for 9 months. Marquez went on to a title eliminator with Lorenzo, and then a fight with Abraham. The promoters and sanctioning body had a set agenda, and they stuck to it. Fairness did not a play a roll.

 

I understand completely. There are a lot of factors that go into judging a fight. Personal preference, home crowd, ref styles, even angle can effect a judge. It's sooo subjective.

But I can't think of any other way other than have more judges, that way, more viewpoints are covered, each judges opinion, errant or not, counts less and therefore makes less of an individual impact.

I can't think of any way to counteract the home crowd.

I do wish there were some way to reward a fighter for a dominant round without a KD and when a 10-8 score might not be appropriate or a judge may be reluctant to award it.
I can see the argument both ways, but IMO, a guy gets the same credit from a judge (10-9)who may have seen it wrong, as a guy who beats his opponent up good and clearly. I think they need to find ways to separate the clear rounds from the razor thin rounds. It could mean a 2 pt swing in the score.

 

Lewis vs Holyfield 1st fight was a bit of a disgrace.