What is the difference between a close fight and a robbery?

Thread does a pretty good job answering this - think another element is when a bad referee call directly impacts the result. Notable examples include the Parker vs Whyte fight where one of the KD was illegal and without the result would have been a draw (given Parker won the round). Other examples include Holyfield vs Moorer 1, Fury vs Ngannou, and Barroso vs Romero.

 

Second GGG Canelo fight was close and could have gone either way - first one was a robbery especially given the 118-110 scorecard.

 

Aside from Roy Jones’s ‘loss’ in the Olympic final (which is in the amateurs anyway), Canelo’s 114-114 card against Mayweather and 118-110 card against GGG may be the worst I’ve ever seen. Blatant corruption.

 

Who you wanted to win

 

When the scorecards clearly deviant significantly from reality and serve the favoured fighter (A-side, home fighter).

For example we saw those two components coming together in the 117 Canelo card for the first Golovkin fight. It was an impossible score for the A-side.

And this happened in both AJ-Usyk fights too, where we had 'attempted robbery'.

 

Some of the clearest examples for close fights being a robbery is when the home/featured guy gets the win, while you can't reasonably find enough rounds for that to be the case.

Examples are Matthysse vs Alexander (10 rounds), where Matthysse won the last 5 rounds clearly, with a knockdown and Alexander hanging on for dear life, while he probably edged all or 4 of the fist 5 himself.
The consensus score was either 96-93 or 95-94 Matthysse, while he lost an SD. One of the judges even awarding Alexander a round where he got basically ragdolled in.

Fight that wasn't close in reality, but close due to the imprecise 10-9 scoring in boxing, and the loser getting the W.

Other examples, Ward vs Kovalev 1... Maravilla vs Murray... Bradley vs Pac 1.

 

It annoys me when there are crap scorecards. Judges should be constantly assessed and assigned to fights accordingly. CJ Ross gets some big fights but should never have been assigned top fights after scoring Floyd and Canelo as a draw. It's like there's no consequences for crap/ corrupt judges.

 

Campbell Hatton got a gift in a fight that he got beat up badly in (forgot the opponent). A lot of it comes down to corruption in my opinion. If you're not the big name, you're probably not getting a decision.

Paulie summed this up really well in one of his post fight interviews.

 

I also see examples here where the other guy (usually not the home or big name fighter) clearly won the fight and still lost close on the scorecards. Those are just clear robberies, which aren't even up for question. And are usually only backed up by chearleaders, nationalists and/or haters of the robbed fighter.

I don't think anyone here really thinks obvious robberies don't exist as it ended up close on the cards at the end.
He only barely got away with it so it didn't really happen

 

That guy should never be allowed to judge a fight again after his Taylor v Catterall scorecard.

 

Yes I remember seeing that fight. It was a 6 rounder on the undercard of a big event ( can’t remember which one) he won 1 round and possibly shared another but got given the decision.

 

But it wasn’t though. If that fight had been between 2 random fighters on an undercard, nobody would have said robbery. It’s only because Ngannou did way better than expected. Fury did enough to pick pocket enough rounds.

 

What about his 117-111 scorecard for Yarde in the first Arthur fight?

 

Tends to depend on who people are supporting. When your guy loses its because the judges are corrupt. When you4 guy wins a close fight it was a well deserved close verdict. Prima facile evidence is when Devin “the Dream” Haney beat Loma with the Lomasexuals claiming that he was robbed ignoring the good things Haney was doing in the fight especially the consistent body attack that was hurting and draining Loma. However they can never accept their deity Loma can lose.