The difference between a close fight and a "robbery"

What's up nowadays with the winner asking for a rematch against the loser?

If Margarito doesn't wanna fight Williams he doesn't have to. He lost. He might be admitting he lost even moreso by not taking the fight. But there is no need for sportsmanship on his side in not taking a rematch with someone who beat him. If it had been him asking for the rematch just recently against Williams and Williams declining the offer then that would be bad sportsmanship on Williams' part. So yes, Marquez wants a rematch because it is he that needs vindication rather than Pac.

 

It wasnt a robbery I agree. It was a close fight that should have gone to Castillo.

 

Zaragoza-McCullough was no robbery either.

 

close fight = pac v jmm 2

robbery = DLH v sweet pea

 

LOL yes he was...Valuev hardly threw any punches...Holyfield won that fight on points...Valuev got lucky it was in his hometown cuz otherwise he got beat by a man that is 46 years old...Valuev is just a hype and nothing more...if he fought the Klitchkos hed be done in 5 rounds...I'd love to see that big muh fu3ka fall..

 

:-( Holy cleary won. That was a Robbery. Anyone who watched the fight with a clear view of the screen without blurred vision wouldn't say otherwise.

 

LOL....You haven't been paying attention if you think DLH vs Sweet Pea was a robbery. Burton vs Agustus= Robbery......LL vs Holy= Robbery......Casa vs Santacuz= Robbery.

DLH vs Sweet Pea= Close fight........JMM vs PAC 1 & 2= Close fight......We really shouldn't have had to delegate an entire thread to something that is common sense.

 

paying attention? that was one of the most controversial big fights of the late 90's and you were probably still sucking on your moms titties at the time. :hey do some fu*king research & you'll find numerous articles & post interview specials just for the simple matter.

how can a "close fight" be scored 115-111, 116-110 & 116-110 when many such as myself had pea winning?

common sense, huhh?

 

Agustus Vs Figuerioa was a robbery on hopkins vs jones undercard

 

It was contraversial but b/c of the wide margins of the scoreing & HOW CLOSE IT WAS!!! I was sucking titties at the time but not "moms":hey. I saw the fight then and have it on DVD. The fight was very close but I saw the fight for Oscar in a close one. But I wasn't "boo, whooing" b/c many saw the figth the other way. There have been robberies in the sport but son.....that wasn't one of them. I've seen fights that were super close get really crazy scores by the judges plenty of times.....so YES..it was contraversail due to the wide margins and of course how close the fight was.

 

in YOUR OPINION.

but for many others in the boxing world it is/was, & thats the reason why the results drew such attention & big controversy afterwards.

:hi:

 

Close fight: Whitaker vs De La Hoya
Robbery: Whitaker vs Ramirez 1

 

Fights like Hopkins-Calzaghe and Pacquiao-Marquez are too close to be called "robberies" even though they produce a variety of different scores and views.

I recently re-watched Chavez v Whitaker - to me, that was a genuine robbery.

 

you were making sense through out the thread up until here.

That fight was no robbery, I had Augustus 2 rounds up but could see how Figuera got the decision. Lampley said it best after that fight, that is a further definition of Augustus career being on the unlucky side of decisions.