Robberies That Were Not.....

A new thread got me to thinking about this. What are some time-honored fights that are continually parroted as "robberies" when quite frankly, they just were not? Makes me wonder if some have actually seen the fights they mention, or if it's just what they feel conditioned to say over time(?)

The first three that come to mind for me..........

Leonard-Hearns II - I had Tommy by a point, but to call this a robbery exposes one's noobness. Painfully close fight no matter whom you give it to. It was ebb and flow, back and forth all the way. To say it was a robbery against Hearns sounds really agenda-ridden.

Hagler-Antuofermo I - This one is more borderline, as I thought Hagler was the victor by a good couple points, maybe three. Objectively though, such a score reflects a close fight. The way you read about it in some circles however (like here, quite often), you'd think Vito hardly won a round. The actual fight tells a very different story. Antuofermo made an impressive late-round surge that made it far too close for Hagler to ***** too much. Of course, he's going to do that because that's what Hagler does, but still.......

Pintor-Zarate - One of those great "urban legends" fights where one reads so often that it was a horrible robbery that they just sing the same song themselves later. Have a look at the fight. Extremely close battle, and several close rounds that really could have gone either way. I think the main problem with the scoring was the wide disparity in scorecards, suggesting that there was dirty work afoot. The fight itself is certainly open for debate. I had Zarate by a couple, but only that. Very, very close bout.

You?

 

Oh, apologies..........the correct term is "noobity."


Thank you.

 

Interesting picks, for sure.....