Is Hopkins Pascal the biggest robbery of all time?

I have never witnessed a fight when a fighter has dominated so much of the fight except for 2 punches landed against him(neither having hurt him), one on the back of the head, and still lost the fight. Despite the fact Hopkins won literally every single possible criteria for who should win a fight, he somehow managed to lose in Canada. Let us systematically breakdown the criteria for who should win the fight to determine who the winner was. I will be listing any possible criteria one can judge to determine who would win the fight.

Fighters reaction at the end: Hopkins
Combos: Hopkins
Punches landed: Hopkins
Power punches: Hopkins
Jabs: Hopkins
Activity: Hopkins
Aggressor: Hopkins
Showboating: Hopkins
Harder shots: Hopkins
Body work:Hopkins
Knock downs: Pascal
Energy level at the end: Hopkins
Momentum of fight: Hopkins
Corners reaction: Hopkins
Fighters reaction in the corner: Hopkins
Sharper punches: Hopkins
Crowd: Pascal
Facial Damage given: Hopkins
Connect Percentage: Hopkins
Ring Generalship: Hopkins

Note that these are not any type of esoteric criteria. These are not only common sense, but common reasons people claim someone won a fight.

To all you delusional people who say the fight was close, or even more pathetic, that Pascal won, it's time to come back to reality and face the facts presented . I can promise you that you can not and will not try to argue with my specific points showing that Bernard clearly won. It's not debatable really. All you have managed to claim so far was a vague " i thought Pascal won the fight". I guess we will have to take you word despite the obvious evidence against you claim, or the fact you couldn't really give any reason why he won.

It's really sad that Bernard was cheated out of becoming the oldest title holder, as a underdog, because of corrupt Canadian judges.

 

wow you are so predictable, you claim it was a close fight, giving no evidence on why it was close. Also like I said you would not even attempt to debate the standard judging criteria that I listed, to somehow justify your claim that the "fight was close" Yep it must be close because you say it is, even though you can't argue the listed points (nor give your own) that show it was not only not close, but a robbery.