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

Exactly!

Robbery is robbery.

Sometimes all it takes is +1 rd or +1 judge or 1+ commentator or 1+ camera angle or etc.

At the end of the day, it's all about whether you can KO your opponent out or land the most damaging punches. That's it. No effective aggression or pouncy defense/ring generalship - you win by punching someone more (and out).

And if someone punches their opponent more and with more damaging punches than their opponent then they should win - it's a robbery when you can see that the fighter lands more punches and they don't win. Simple really.

 

A fighter is robbed of the ability to further their commerciality, advance their career, grow their funds and of their legacy. It's economic violence/fraud at its fundamental core.

 

The mental state of the judges.

 

Knowing Loma lost some fights is not a lack of respect it’s just reality. Does not diminish his standing but those deviants who worship him as if he was a deity cannot accept the truth of their demi-god.

 

You have no honor you have called Loma a chicken and his fans Lomasexuals you are insecure.

 

That's all it really boils down to

 

A robbery is when a guy wins clearly by two rounds and upwards, anything else it's like you can make a case with a descending sense of justice. Three rounds clear for example is when it begins to be an actual robbery. Bivol wasn't robbed, just like Golovkin wasn't robbed in the Canelo 2 fight, whereas he clearly won by 3 or 4 rounds in the first fight.

 

Loma v Haney was a robbery. There is no way to give it to Haney if you are objective.

Beterbiev v Bivol was close. There were a lot of close rounds that could be decided on a single flurry.

 

You are a Lomasexual though. Loma called out Tank when we answered the call he chickened out and is now contemplating retirement. Can’t say I blame him I won’t want to face Tank either. You saw how Ryan Garcia called him out and when Tank said yes Garcia suffered mental health specifically nervous shock when contemplating the reality of facing Tank. He had to take time out to develop some cojones and corazon before taking the test and during the fight he ended up quitting after being outclassed. Simple question why is Loma ducking Tank now after Tank answered the call which will mean a career high pay day for Loma?

 

Honestly, though, in a strange way this might actually make robberies more likely.

Let's say we have an extremely rare fight which should, correctly, be scored a clean 6-6... With only 1 round arguably the other way, but a bit of a stretch.
Judges scorecards:
114-114
113-115
117-111

Under your proposal above, the two reasonable cards get stomped on by the one example of a clearly incorrect card.

For example... With your system, Wilder would've won his first fight with Fury, because the card that had Wilder winning (already ridiculous) was wider than the one that picked for Fury.


Sometimes you'll get fights where the cards are all justifiable - maybe you could argue your system would work well there, but then if it's close enough to be called both ways, maybe a draw IS the better outcome?

 

It'd give more power to a rogue card but if one fighter scored more points than the other the fact remains theres a clear tie breaker here.

I think Wilder should have won for this reason and him winning that fight was not ridiculous at all IMO though. He had 2 knockdowns. Its hard to call a fight where the winner had 2 knockdowns a robbery IMO.

I think ideally the judges job is to pick a winner and a loser. A draw indicates a tie when(usually)one fighter had a better dissenting scorecard. Also in this scenario the win would still be a SD which is in fact what it was a decision that was split.

 

Fights like Ali vs Norton II, Holmes vs Norton, Holyfield vs Bowe II were close fights. A fight like Lewis vs Holyfield I is a clear robbery.

 

This is the closest example to Beterbiev vs Bivol in my opinion.

 

Precisely - but that's the whole point, if that tie breaker is disproportionately likely to be rogue, then it'd be a bad system.

And if three judges can't at least agree in majority, then the odds are that it's probably a close fight - and when it's a close fight, the card furthest away from the draw card is the most likely to be the rogue one... It might not always be so, but it's worse than just calling a draw (with or without a rematch to settle the score).

This is frankly ridiculous.

I'm sorry, but the draw card was already a stretch in Wilder's favour - anything beyond wasn't justifiable at all, and the card in question was clearly cooked and made to look ridiculous (as it was) by the late knockdowns.

For Wilder to have won that with a generous (draw) and corrupt (115-111) card?
Absolutely no way that's a correct outcome - as it is, he's already lucky to have gotten a draw out of it.

I think it's the judges job to score the fight honestly.

Not all do - and giving them additional motivation to score wrongly by wider margins seems rather perverse, if you ask me.