The Very Definition of a Close Match is Its CLOSE. As In They're Not Robberies.

If you saw May/Maidana as a draw, you need to watch that fight again.

Marquez won 2, draw 1, won 3, won 4. :deal

May won the Castillo fight too, 114-112.

 

Would Huck-Lebedev qualify?

 

Wow someone is obviously a floydo fan...:dead wouldn't want you scoring a floydo fight if I was the opponent:hi:

 

I still say a draw or a very close win for Maidana VS FLOYD 1:good:deal
:smoke

 

Great thread CST, completely agree, except with your ladder point about Herrera. There ain't nothing clear cut about that guy, similar to Paulie and the likes, I would absolutely hate judging those guys fights. There are so many punches they throw that judges have got to be scratching their head wondering how much credit/merit to give those punches as it's almost impossible to determine how much effect they had since so many look about as bothersome as flies to their opponent. It's a good thing for the judges in Paulie's case because at least he loses clearly when he loses, Herrera is a complete headache, one they will always judge against instead of overthinking in close rounds.

 

it shows how thick some fans are that you have to make a thread stating the bleeding obvious. case in point is the degale / dirrell thread, all the usual suspects squealing robbery over the latter's previous visit to these shores.

 

Fair enough, but just to point out, many judges will score against you if you make them think too hard about how much effect you are creating. I know I do, I say if you really want it, show some commitment (to your punching) and quit being so ambiguous.

 

According to modern boxing fans every close fight is a "robbery." Most of these internet fanboys DKSAB

 

I'll just add that it does slightly depend in the court of public opinion. We can all agree there are close but clear cut victors where there are easy rounds to score in say a 7-5 victory. However sometimes the wrong man get's the 7-5 victory and a majority of the fans know it thus the cries of robbery.

If 80% of the fans saw boxer A win 7-5, but boxer B gets the victory, then there is probably something fishy with the judges.

 

Most people don't actually think close fights where robberies, it just suits their racist agenda to spew it.

For example, if you think Hopkins was robbed vs Calzaghe, you'll also think Dirrell was robbed against Froch, Mosley was robbed against Cotto, Carson Jones was robbed against Kell Brook, etc while at the same time they will argue their is no way Castillo or Maidana could be seen as beating Mayweather, De La Hoya as beating Mosley, Malignaggi, De Leon and Quintero as beating Broner, Pacquiao as beating Bradley etc,

 

I think it's a shame that a fighter is often written off after a 'close' loss to someone of high - or at least similar - caliber. Mind you, that tends to be the Boxrec warriors who do that

 

Ehh seems more like your cry baby agenda.

Hopkins beat Calzaghe, Dirrell beat Froch, Cotto beat Mosley, Jones beat Brook, Castillo and Maidana beat Mayweather, DLH beat Mosley 2, De Leon beat Broner, Broner beat Malignaggi, Pacquiao beat Bradley. Didn't see Quintero vs Broner.

Most people mainly cry about the Hopkins vs Calzaghe fight and the Castillo vs Mayweather fight. All of these fights feature black fighters, half white fighters, and half Latino fighters. Seems your crux is against the black fighters.