What do you hate the most in boxing?

Exactly, that's why i think they should introduce live scoring.

 

I thought you was a reasonable poster until i read this tripe, now i know why you don't want live scoring.......

 

Live scoring wouldn't have stopped Ward from stopping Kovalev.

 

No but it might have given Kovalev the opportunity to knock the cheat out in their first bout which he clearly won.

 

Hey I don't see anything wrong with you thinking Kovalev won the first fight. He certainly won more rounds clearly, but there's an argument that Ward edged more of the close rounds. It was a controversial decision, but most considered it a very close fight that could have went either way, and not a robbery. There's a big difference between a close fight and a robbery !

 

That certainly would be interesting. The current system works for the promoters and commissions so unfortunately don’t see any changes anytime soon.

 

Let's make it clear it's all relative. Of course non of this controversial decisions have been full on robberies but they were robberies none the less.

 

Golovkin beat him all about the ring in the first match and Canelo was literally running backwards at spots. Golovkin threw more and landed more. Facts. Opinion was overwhelming that GGG won. More facts.

In the rematch GGG threw even more and landed even more. Canelo was not only outlanded but made to miss repeatedly and nearly had his head smacked off by uppercuts. Opinion was yet again overwhelming that GGG won.

Fixed it.

Of course if we swapped Wilder for Canelo you'd have written a 100 page thesis on how Canelo was doing great

 

Boxing needs more judges from Mexico and former Soviet countries.

Take for example the Wilder-Fury fight.

Rochin the Mexican-born judge, now living in the US, scored the fight correctly for Wilder.

The other two British Commonwealth judges, Canadian Tapper and Brit Edwards, scored the fight a draw and for Fury, respectively. These last two cards were clearly biased for Fury, who hardly won a clear round in the fight and was knocked down twice.

So the only fair card was the Mexican card.

And yet there are hordes of Brittard posters on this site, as numerous as flies on a sack of ****, claiming the decision was home cooking. They don’t even realize that there were two Brittard judges at the fight!

 

Canelo was doing great vs GGG, in both fights. Wilder wasn't doing great vs Fury . . . outside of the knockdowns. Wilder was clearly being outboxed and was clearly losing before he rallied with those two massive knockdowns.

The difference is Canelo vs GGG was close, most of the rounds were close enough to be argued either way since almost every round was so competitive. With Fury vs Wilder, Fury won most of the rounds clearly, and it was really only the knockdowns that made it close. Without those knockdowns, it would have been seen as a Fury blowout. You can't say the same thing about Canelo GGG. Both fights were close and neither fighter needed knockdowns to win like Wilder did.

 

There's levels to this, but you've illustrated that too many close fights are called robberies when they are not. When it comes to boxing, there's really no such thing as a non-"full on" robbery. When it comes to robberies, when fanboys start claiming robbery they do so with full passion and act very much like it was a "full on" robbery regardless of if it really was one or not.

 

I think the wrestling has gotten pretty bad. Nothing wrong with wrestling to gain a superior angle or to create opening, but too often fighters aren´t allowed to even fight out of the clinch. Thus whenever guys get tied up, the ref immediately separates them. So there are constants lulls is action.

 

Say a burglar comes in to your house and steals your mobile phone yet leaves the TV, jewellery and cash alone. You've still been robbed at the end of the day! Hahahaha.

 

Corruption

 

Agenda having fans who aren't even real fans of the sport and fans who refuse to give credit to boxers when it's due.