The worst robberies of all time?

Who said Murray-Sturm?

 

There are very few robberies in boxing. Unlucky decisions, yes; poor decisions, yes; but robberies?

A robbery in boxing terms has to be beyond reasonable doubt. As it is an implied felony.

A Coggi/GonzalesI bout is a robbery

A Whitaker/RamirezI is a robbery

A Chavez/Whitaker is a robbery

The Marquez/Pacquiao fights were not robberies, they were close fights where some, even a majority felt the decision was wrong. But that in itself does not make the fights robberies as there is reasonable doubt over the decisions.

 

Even the one he got knocked out in?

 

Robin Reid v Sven Ottke!

 

just go to amateur championships follow em through, biggest pile of crap[decision wise] you'll ever witness.

 

Anyone mentioned Escalara-Everett yet?

 

Yes, I did. Of course ;-)

 

@tbooze

I think the 3rd fight was a robbery, Marquez clearly won most of the rounds. The first fight was close enough to be considered debatable, but the 2nd was another poor decision.

Though at least Pac actually looked good in that fight. I was embarrassed after the 3rd fight, to be honest.

 

Pacquiao vs Marquez 1

P M

10 6
10 9
9 10
9 10
9 10
9 10
10 9
10 10
10 9
9 10
9 10
9 10


113 113 (No Robbery)



Pacquiao vs Marquez II


10 9
9 10
10 8
10 9
9 10
9 10
10 9
9 10
10 9
10 9
10 10
9 10


115 113 (No Robbery)




Pacquiao vs Marquez III

10 9
10 9
9 10
9 10
9 10
10 9
9 10
9 10
9 10
10 9
9 10
10 9

113 115 (ROBBERY. No question in my mind.)

 

I think the second fight is the hardest to score.

The first, it's Pac taking the first two, then Marquez taking everything else apart from the odd Pac round which is easy to spot.

Likewise the 3rd, Pac took the first, maybe the 2nd, and the last.... maybe the 11th too - everything else to Marquez.

The 2nd.... lots of pretty close rounds (the 3rd and 6th aside) that can be interpreted either way. In this case I prefer the clean punching and ring generalship over reckless aggression - was a really good fight though it must be said.

 

One round difference and the fight is a draw; two rounds and the fight is a Pacquiao win, how can that be a no reasonable doubt robbery?

 

I agree. All are great fights IMO, and should be looked on as such.

 

You score a fight by two points and think it's a blatant robbery? :huh

I know you're probably gonna use the close but clear cliche but fights like that aren't that bad robberies, at least in my opinion. And I also know that many had it much wider to Marquez, but my point is that I can see how/why Pac got the decision. With some other fights there is genuinely no reason.

 

I had Marquez 8/4 in the possible finale, but there were enough close rounds that a 2/3 round swing to Pacquiao could easily be judged. Thus I call it a close fight in which Marquez was unlucky.

 

I'm glad you asked me that

I'm a big pacquiao fan, and watched it with my 'pacquiao' hat on the day after, knowing everyone thought it was a robbery. I gave EVERY single close round to Pacquiao, and still had him losing. I couldnt possibly make a case for him winning any more rounds, and i cant see how anyone else can either. The 7 Marquez rounds were pretty much all 'big Marquez rounds'.

The fight could easily be scored 10-2 IMO, but I think 9-3 is fair. Total robbery as I couldnt possibly make a case for Pacquiao winning more than 5 rounds