I think "robbery" is a criminally overused term, pun intended. When I think of robbery, I think it needs several things: A. One fighter clearly in control throughout solid majority of the fight. B. Punch stats verifying this overwhelmingly favoring one fighter C. There is no real question that the fighter landing less, and in less control of the fight, is not landing significantly more powerful punches that are much more telling on the fighter landing more than that fighters punches are on him. Really, I know we've had some controversial decisions the last few years, but I can't think of any 100% robberies. Lewis Holyfield is the fight I always think of when I think of a robbery. Each of those categories were resoundingly met. Chisora Helenius was a robbery that easily met those categories. Pac Bradley was probably a robbery. But the last few years, I think the high profile controversial decisions, at least the ones springing to mind, were somewhere on the bad decision or questionable decision scale, not outright robberies. I'd call a bad decision is where you can technically make a defensible argument for the decision in question, but the weight of the evidence appears to be for a different result. I'd call a questionable decision one in which there is a fairly good argument the result was fair, but more people dispute it than accept it and probably a better argument that another result would have been better. I'd still use the same metrics as I note in "robbery", just the scale or combo would obviously be vastly different. So, a robbery is where the fighter lands close to 2 to 1 on the other party, is in control and his punches are at least as effective. A bad decision might be nearly as big a margin in punch stats and control, but there is a great argument the punches looked much more effective for the other fighter. Or some combo. Questionable maybe one fighter has a slight, consistent edge in punches landed, but it really turns on what looks better to different people. Etc. Personally, I'd rank Pac Horn and Chocalatito as bad decisions, with Pac Horn being the closest to an outright robbery. Kov Ward I as a bad decision. GGG Canelo fights I'd rank as questionable decisions, more toward the bad end, with Wilder Fury being a questionable decision more toward the good end. I scored it to Fury (115 to 112), but given the overall complexion of the fight, I really just don't have a big problem with the result. Main point, we call everything robberies and we're really being dramatic. This is a subjective sport. A lot goes into it. Not everyone who scores something has an agenda, they just see and rank something different.
There are fights which can be 'what you like' and open to being scored either way depending on your preference and fights in which I can't see a case being made for a certain fighter to win by any reasonable judge in good conscience. Kovalev Ward is such a fight. I tried rewatching that from the perspective of Ward's father and still had him coming up short.
if i steal 1p from a guy in the street its robbery same as if i stole 100k from a guy, if a guy wins a fight and millions of people say the same thing its a robbery weathers it by 1 round or 5 rounds.
OP, I've been arguing this on boxing boards for years. It's an easy standard to explain: 1) If you can find the rounds for the guy when looking for them, but you have to give him excessive benefit of the doubt, then it's a bad decision. 2) If you can't find the rounds, even if looking for them, it's a robbery. Casamayor/Santa Cruz was a proper robbery. And there are individual scorecards that also are robbery, but usually (hopefully) overruled by the other judges. I'm thinking Mayweather/Canelo. Roy Jones as the olympics was a robbery. Fury/Wilder was a bad decision, I think, because you have to give Wilder a lot more benefit of close early rounds. But it isn't a robbery, because you can plausibly score 5 rounds in his favor.
