Anyone who should've won the fight, and didn't, was robbed. What's the rule of thumb for a robbery and how many points differential is the benchmark? I think I had Holmes by 3 points, can't remember. Spinks won the first battle outright and Holmes did more than enough to regain the strap.
i thought Holmes won but nah not a robbery just a close fight. hard to tell effective punching on tv too so maybe the judges saw something we didn't? i reserve robbery for stuff like Holyfield - Lewis 1. or really, the most common robbery in boxing is when the hot prospect loses a 6 rounder but gets the decision to keep his "0".
It was a very bad decision; Holmes won, but I think maybe the judges were influenced by the first fight, which Spinks rightly won, and Larry called wolf... As mentioned by some here, I too tend to interpret a robbery as a bad decision that also has the hint of corruption to it. In this case I just think it was just down to poor judging.
I'm almost done with Larry's book. Reading how shitty he was treated for so long by the entire sport (the exception being Ali himself), I cannot blame him for the chip he had on his shoulder. Even Cosell was a dick to him until the first Shavers fight.
That's been my scorecard every time I've watched the fight. I scored the first one exactly one point for Spinks. It bears mentioning that not once did Spinks actually hurt Holmes in either fight, but Holmes hurt him many times, especially in the 2nd. One of the biggest bummers for me in reference to that second fight was watching Holmes hurt Spinks really bad in the final rounds, then completely, mysteriously fail to finish him.
This for me too. I knew Holmes for being a slick out boxer and once he knew you were in trouble it was practically over. When Spinks got out the round, it was almost a definite ending to Holmes prime if it wasn't obvious enough.