Robberies That Weren't....?

Briggs-Foreman

Briggs was winded for most of the fight, creating the impression that he was being beaten.

 

Totally agree. Pretty much sums it up.

 

I've heard some people say Carmen Basilio was robbed in the rematch with Robinson, but I've always scored it for Ray.

Toney-McCallum is another one that comes to mind, as I narrowly scored both fights for Toney despite the general consensus that McCallum was robbed.

 

It certainly isn't revisionism concerning Ali-Young, quite the opposite. When Cosell asked around at ringside, most reporters had it very close. I don't know if this was really termed a robbery until after Ali's fights with Norton and Shavers, as well as winning on one judge's card against Spinks.

Norton III was no doubt immediately controversial, but if you look in the thread that recently was done about the fight you'll see that there were several heavy opinions in favor of Ali. Not like Pac-Bradley I, for instance, where just about everyone at ringside had it for Pac.

So you are of course welcome to your own view, but the opposite one isn't really revisionistic because there never was a full consensus either way at the time.

Actually I could have named these two fights as examples where the term robbery is an exaggeration, but was a bit reluctant to start that whole argument again. But...

 

Agree.

 

Toney could well have been given the first one IMO (razor close fight, but Toney landed the really damaging blows), but I just can't score the second for him. Am a fan of McCallum, though.

 

Good observation.

This is particularly true with fights where we do not have the entire fight on film, such as Louis Walcott I.

 

I didn't think that anybody thought it was a robbery, outside of non boxing fans who had watched the film!

 

The Giardello family actually took this to court, after the film (Hurricane) suggested the decision was booed. They won, and the film was edited for the DVD release.

As for me, I never really had a problem with Lewis/HolyfieldI. I thought Lennox was intimidated by his first huge fight in the States, and under performed, with Holyfield being given any benefit of the doubt.

 

SRL has said on camera that Hearns-Leonard II belongs to Tommy. Maybe Ray's being charitable because he believes he again would have taken Hearns out given three more rounds, but to say that rematch draw actually belongs to Tommy is still a remarkable statement.

It's been a long time since I've done this, but the last time I read the volumes of YT comments by viewers who watched the entirety of Ali-Norton III, the vast majority had Ali the winner, 8-7 or 9-6 in rounds.

That rounds system is also crucial to many historic controversies which are retroactively assessed on the basis of the modern ten point system which didn't permanently usurp rounds scoring or the five point system at the heavyweight championship level until Larry Holmes became the only HW Champion under the ten point must system over the championship distance with more than two successful title defenses. Because Louis-JJW I was scored on the rounds basis, JWW's KDs count for a single round each, NOT two points. Some reports have that one even entering round 14, then JJW forfeiting the final two rounds by running away. Guy like Louis and Ali could get penalized if they didn't do as well as expected, or their challengers did better than expected. Anybody buy Louis-Godoy I as only an SD for Louis?

My suggestion would be to invert controversial decisions in favor of one to whoever the decision went against. Would Ali-Young have been more controversial if Jimmy had been awarded the title, for example?

Pintor-Zarate. I was viewing it as it was broadcast live and even Lupe seemed shocked and stunned when the decision was announced in his favor. I've sometimes wondered since if all one had to do was last the distance with Carlos to dethrone him. No, that decision was crooked.

Let me bring up a near robbery concerning the aforementioned Larry Holmes while I'm at it. If it hadn't been for Mills Lane's exemplary conduct of Holmes-C O O N ey, specifically his penalizing Gerry three points for low blows, judges Duane Ford and Dave Moretti would have had C O O N ey ahead entering round 13. In the aftermath, ABC and Cosell conducted a special reviewing their scoring and having them explain their criteria in the studio, round by round. Afterwards, Cosell asked them if they'd have scored it any differently upon reviewing the complete footage. Moretti stood by his scoring, but Ford, incredibly, said with remarkably smug confidence that he might have re-scored one of the rounds he had even in favor of Gerry!

Anybody care to watch the first 12 rounds of Holmes-C O O N ey again, then try making a case for Gerry winning without those low blow penalties issued by Mills Lane? (As a referee, it was this one which really made the diminutive Lane's reputation.)

 

Pintor vs zarate was very close imo.Rightly controversial, but not a fight i can see no case for the winner in.

Zarate was overly cautious and didn't look the confident destroyer of Pre-Gomez mangling.I don't think he should have retired though as he still had more than enough left to be champ again.he'd be looked on more favourably if he had proven more conclusively like Olivares that he could come back from losses.

 

Tom Bogs versus Chris Finnegan. August 17, 1970.
Finnegan was an Olympic MW gold winner up against a young Tom Bogs, coming of a loss to Emilie Griffith. They battled, slugged and kept shaking each other 15 rounds for the European title in Copenhagen, Denmark.
It was a thriller, a true great battle - Tom Bogs winning a close desicion. The Brits knew it was close and Finnegan took the defeat without complaining .... but only till Brtish press started to protest from their seats when referee Tomser, the only man scoring, had his score announced: 11 rounds for Bogs and 4 for Finnegan.
Boxing News called it a scandal and somehow the myth about the score has changed Bogs´ victory in to a story about Finnegan being robbed in Copenhagen. He lost - but he did´nt lose 11 rounds.

 

I thought Holmes Co0ney was close minus the point deductions. I watched it maybe a year ago but didn't score it. I know Gerry got in a vicious body attack at the end of round 4? Which gave him the round and then I ended up giving him the 5th, 7th and 8th I can't recall but hat was a good fight.
Can someone bring up more reports on Schmeling vs Sharkey 2 as that seems to be a legit robbery but I am having a hard time finding many reports from the era on it. Thx

 

1. Foreman vs schulz: It was a poor fight for Foreman as defending champ at the age of 46 but it was a close fight. Larry Merchant had it in favour of Foreman on HBO and Schulz didnt do enough to win the fight.

2. Norton vs Ali 111 in 1976 - no way was this a robbery Norton had good rounds in the middle of the fight but I honestly dont see him winning more than 6 rounds in the fight. The second Ali-Norton fight was closer in my opinion.

 

I've always been shocked by how many people seem to think that De la Hoya v. Whitaker was a robbery. I personally thought that DLH clearly won the fight.

I agree with OP on Pintor - Zarate but I thought that two of the Hagler-Antuofermo I scorecards were ridiculous (especially the one that gave Vito 8 rounds).