It would be really hard to find any fight that everyone agreed with unless it was not remotely competitive. Because people have biases in all directions. I watched Foreman vs. Briggs at the time, & it from the pre-fight feature & then looking at the result, it really seemed like their was a loving fix or benign conspiracy-to get George to retire. This website has folks score fights-I have never seen a "controversy rating" higher quite as high as this one, 79%. When 2 of the judges have it a 4 point spread in favor of Shannon, & not one reviewer has that high a disparity, you know something was wrong with those "inexperienced' judges. Corruption or not. Interestingly, like the other referee, our own McGrain has it a draw there. [url]https://eyeonthering.com/boxing/george-foreman-vs-shannon-briggs[/url]
I’ll second Nelson v French 1 I’ll also throw in Leonard v Hearns II. And for the old timers, Fitz v Sharkey I, if we flex and define the DQ as a verdict.
It's one of the most controversial fights on Eye on the Ring which I like for this kind of thing, and it was just one of those rare fights where it really did feel like the fix was in. The puncher in the fight outlanded the superstar in the fight clearly while controlling the action as general and the judges still found a way to give it to the superstar. Hopkins-Oscar had to happen, and for that to happen, Oscar had to win that strap. It's not 100% on EOTR though.
I've never seen a guy score Snipes over Coetzee even given near everyone scores it via the wrong system.
Interesting. Not that often you hear that from fighters. Ali said that he lost to Norton in the rubber, though, but I don't consider that a robbery. I could have gone in Norton's favour, absolutely, but not a robbery in my book.
