Top 5 Worst Robberies? (In order of significance)

Norton v Ali III

Holmes v Spinks I (media didnt wanted Holmes broke Marciano's record)

Holyfied v Lewis II: it was a perfect draw

Fury v Wilder I

Foreman v Briggs

Lewis v Mercer: It was a perfect draw

USyK v Joshua : Usyk was robbed of a KO win by Hearn who sounded the bell 7 second before the end of the match : It would have been sufficient another jab by Usyk to tear down Bodybuilder. Lol.

 

Lara vs Williams

Foreman vs Schultz

De La Hoya vs Sturm

Young vs Ali

Hagler vs Antuofermo 1

 

Fighting Harada vs Johnny Famechon 1.

Not only was it a robbery but it had some bad refereeing too. This stopped Harada from being the first 3 division champion from japan and the first fighter to win the flyweight, Bantamweight and Featherweight titles.

 

This content is protected

 

Yeah I gotta agree about that one. You could have even given it to Holyfield but after the controversy of the first fight, Lewis was always going to get the decision.

 

Foreman--Schultz changed the lineage (I never bothered watching)

If De La Hoya weren't robbed in the Mosley rematch, he probably wouldve stayed at 154 and had a different career.

Rigodeaux was robbed against Casmiero, so now it's unlikely that Donaire or Inoue fights happen for him.

Marquez--Pac III changed some things.

Hagler probably would've fought on if given at least a draw against Leonard.

 

Ali vs Norton III

Hagler vs Leonard

Whitaker vs Chavez

Whitaker vs Ramirez

Hagler vs Antuofermo I

 

Canelo Golovkin 1 has to be up there in terms of injustice.

Golovkin lost:

His place on the lineage of the middleweight title.

A win over the current pound for pound king.

The opportunities that the win would have opened up for him, which were likely considerable.

Time, which was not on his side at this point.

In my opinion it was a clear cut win.

 

No it didn’t. They were going to have a second fight regardless and GGG lost in it.

Notice how GGG has no interest in Charlo and Andrade?

 

Kovalev-Ward I was a bad robbery and I doubt they have a rematch if scored correctly. Kovalev likely loses shortly after but Ward perhaps doesn’t make the hall of fame whereas Kovalev would be seen as likely to enter.

Canelo-GGG we’re both poorly scored fights. Not sure if there would be a big push for Canelo being this historical fighter without it or whether they’d just keep fighting until Canelo beat him.

Harada-Famechon I is a good one. Harada would probably get the full credit his career deserved if he’s got the correct verdict.

 

I'm with you, my friend. It both changed and cheapened the lineal title at the time.

I know I'll get ribbed, but to me the Spinks-Holmes II robbery was unconscionable, as Holmes was more than worthy of winning that title for the second time. It would have rounded out his career perfectly, and probably raised him up further in the eyes of the world, later losses nonwithstanding.

Spinks was hurt half a dozen times in that fight, at least half that badly. He was out on his feet in the later rounds. He never once even moderately hurt Holmes. It was a robbery, even if Holmes was most obviously showing his age and relative lack of reflexes.

 

Certainly a plausible scenario.

I personally had Golovkin winning the second fight, but it is more debatable.

Obviously as champion, Golovkin would have held more influence over the terms.

Even if he loses the second fight, he still gets his moment of glory, and his moment of immortality!

You might well know more about the politics of those negotiations than I, but the man is 40 now.

I would advise him to pick his fights carefully.

 

Honestly I thought Holmes took the first fight as well but it was no robbery.

The 2nd fight on the other hand was inexcusable.

 

I've always had Spinks winning the first fight by a point, but to me that fight was pretty lame either way. Spinks mostly ran and acted like a clown, and Holmes looked kind of baffled by such a silly (though somewhat effective) boxing performance.

I think Spinks planned to be as awkward as possible against Larry, knowing the latter far preferred more conventional types. He used a couple of Berbick tricks to keep from getting pole-axed, a couple of Leon ducks (which were the only thing that kept big brother from getting slaughtered even earlier), and the jab-negating of Witherspoon (and to some degree Norton). The problem was, though the defensive stylings served their purpose, Michael's offensive...uh, "attack" was mostly just a bunch of off-balance gnat shots with little more than arm behind them. He never mounted anything more than an irritating set of barrages.

Many commentators/scribes were summarily unimpressed with that first fight circus strategy, and for good reason. But hey, Michael on paper beat a possibly top 3 ATG, past it or not, and he still deserves credit. The second fight was a big stinker of a robbery and most watching knew it.