Overrated Bad Decisions?

1. Ali vs Norton 111 - Close fight not a robbery at all as Norton spends a lot of the rounds defending and I only see him winning about 6 out of 15 rounds convincingly.

 

Whitaker-Chavez and Lewis-Holyfield 1

They were bad decisions, but were ruled DRAW at the end of the day.
They were not dominations on the level of Ali-Terrell or Calzaghe-Lacy, far from it.
The "draw" verdicts were bad and unfair, but not quite the shocking robberies they were made out to be.

 

Holmes-Witherspoon.

I actually thought Holmes won the decision, and a draw is fair. Many of the posters seem to agree with those thoughts. Giving Witherspoon a victory here is tough, but at the time this was considered one of the biggest robberies of it's day.

 

I have Ken winning it by three rounds. Not a MASSIVE robbery by any stretch of the imagination,though.

 

Eubank-Watson I.

I thought Watson edged it on workrate but so many saw him practically walking it, which is ridiculous in my opinion.

 

I thought lewis vs Holyfield 1 was daylight robbery meself

 

Chavez - Taylor first fight - Taylor was a dead man walking after 6th round, dead as a ****ing doorknocker if Richard hadn't stepped in in the last round. Steele asked Taylor three times if he was okay, and there was no response...whether there were two minutes left, or 22...when you'd eaten so many Chavez punches, and that ****ing punch...time doesn't matter.

 

Holyfield Lewis 1 is a terrible robbery. In recent yrs Chavez vs Whitaker was closer than originally perceived. I think I scored it 7-5 Whitaker.

I agree with Ali vs Norton. I scored 8-7 for Norton but that is not a robbery.

 

Whitaker-Chavez was a clear robbery yet also an 'overrated' bad decision. I read about it for a few years before I watched it, and the boxing public and media gave the impression Whitaker was hardly touched and Chavez was completely clueless and outclassed. Yet when I watched it I was surprised that Chavez was in the fight the whole way, winning rounds, composed, putting together more effective offense than Whitaker for much of the fight. Whitaker should've got the nod, but it was no Whitaker-Ramirez, Marquez-Pac 3, Barrera-Morales 1, amongst countless others.

Another one: Mayweather-Castillo 1. I remember as it happened I scored it 7-5 Mayweather. Despite Castillo landing by far more than anyone had on Floyd at the time and getting him out of his usual comfort zone for several rounds, he just did not clearly outland Floyd for most of the fight. Without getting into a round-by-round, for several rounds Castillo would come forward, not even throw much more than Floyd, and when he did throw he would land grazing punches to Floyd's arms, while Floyd would counter the exchange with a deft but clear jab, that could easily be credited more. And, after seeming flat in the middle rounds Floyd dug deep and stood with Castillo and I thought pulled out the fight with sharp punching in round 11. Another aside to the Pacmaniacs: Floyd at 130 and 135 was no runner/pure counterpuncher, and that was a pretty fun fight to watch.

The bad decisions in big fights get blown out of proportion because of the mainstream media's condemnation of them. But we boxing fans know there have been many worse.

 

Hagler vs Antuofermo.

Hagler was better but let the rounds look too close. Challengers should look to dominate. A frair draw in my eyes.

 

I'm in the minority here, but I think Michael Spinks won the second fight with Holmes.

 

Yeah, I think this fight is WAY too close to call a clear bad decision. I'm getting ready to score it for the "what fights did you watch/score" thread I think tomorrow. I did 1 yesterday and had Spinks edging it by a point.

 

Pac vs Marquez. first 3 fights.

 

I think Unforgiven meant that in both cases a clear winner at least got a draw, not a loss in his resume. So the real winners were 'less' robbed because of a draws on the scorecards instead of a loss.

I scored both fights 9-3 (or the closest 8-4) and can't see a draw in either.