Around these parts that counts as a close fight, and the people who scored it for N'Dam will be going around crowing "I told you so" telling everyone else they are biased and don't know how to score a fight. That ****'s been rubbing me raw lately. The guys on this board who are the worst at scoring are constantly validated by regular robberies and anybody who actually knows what they are seeing is constantly undercut by all the bad judging. I think it's been happening more this year than in any time since I joined the site because we've been having more competitive match ups than any time in the last five years. People didn't need to know how to score when every fight was a massive lopsided gimmie.
i completely agree that "celebrity" shouldn't matter when assessing unfairness, but i think we should definitely factor in what's at stake when considering unfairness--and quite often those two are correlated (ie, fighters of "celebrity" stature tend to be in fights of greater consequence, eg, world title bouts). in the case of Murata vs N'Dam, it was an eliminator fight to determine the WBC #1 contender at MW (technically the winner becomes the WBC MW World Champion, subordinate to GGG's super title)--ie,no real title was at stake, but still just one step removed from that. second, i think that it's completely reasonable to hold the judges and referee in championship fights and fights one level below, to a higher standard. They are paid more, etc. For these fights a bad result seems to me "more unfair" because it ought to be less likely to happen than in a lower tier fight.
