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

I agree. I would like to see those close loss fighters featured in other high profile fights to raise notoriety and regain contention status. I would think that is what most fans would like to see: competitive fights.

 

The only fights you scored correctly was Cotto beating Mosley, Pacquiao beating Bradley and De Leon beating Broner.

I take it you dislike British fighters and Mayweather so you just proved my point. :thumbsup

 

You just can't accept Mayweather will always be the best of this era troll.

 

atsch

What you on about you lunatic? I just told that guy that Mayweather beat Maidana and Castillo.

I don't really care either fighter Mayweather but he's behind Pacquiao in terms of accomplishments. So maybe it's you that can't accept that deluded fanboy.

 

Mayweather is unbeaten and has faced better fighters than Pac you can't argue this fool.

 

I disagree with a couple of CST80s calls.

Pacquiao-Marquez 3 I stopped scoring after a certain point because Pac needed a knockout to win. He didn't get it.

Canelo-Lara I can see as a draw, but I thought Lara was clearly the better fighter that night and deserved the win. It kind of reminds me of Bradley-Marquez. Judges and fans were giving the come forward more aggressive fighter the benefit of the doubt, even though they weren't actually doing damage to the more skilled counter puncher.

Mayweather-Castillo, Mayweather lost by two points. That's close, but I've seen closer.

Chavez-Vera, clear robbery. Vera hit him two or three times as much. You can only give that fight to Chavez if you have an exaggerated idea of his power and think that every punch he landed was worth three or four of Vera's. It's sort of the reverse of the Provo-Algieri bout. Of course, in that situation I was of the opinion that just tagging the guy shouldn't be enough to win the bout if you can't actually hurt him.