...that were close fights, where you feel a split decision was justified but the wrong man came out on top. Likewise, a list of some qualifying for the same where the right man came up on top. Perhaps a top ten list for each?
How can you designate a "right man" winning but feel a split-decision justified ? Isn't that slightly schizoid ? I think spilt decisions are BAD if the right man won, it taints his victory, casts doubt. They are partially good when an injustice was done and the wrong man won, because they at least draw some attention to said injustice. Frankly, if I can see good arguments for both men winning I have to say a draw is the best result.
I dont think a split decision can ever be justified completely. As close as a fight is, one man won it (unless it was a draw). Though i understand what you mean, this is how i see it
Well, oftentimes, when I'm scoring a fight, I will throw a * to inidicate a close round that could have gone either way. Many times, there are extremely close rounds that could have gone either way. It largely depends on a judge's 'style'.
You're right, but in theory, there is only 1 wiinner of a round, like i said, its just difficult to determine that person most of the time. I'll start using your * method BTW, good idea, just so i can refer to the rounds which might be the turnin' points in close fights
I didn't read the thread properly I thought you just said best split decision not ones you disagree with. In that case Witherspoon vs Holmes.
That fight was a draw, and even if it was a SD it would've been an awful decision. Lewis won clearly. Second fight was way closer.
To be fair, I think I stole that from someone here. But, I do find it helpful when scoring fights that are difficult to score and have a lot of close rounds. :good
