When a close fight became a robbery.

When it's an impossibility to find more than 6 feasible rounds that one can give to the winner, any scorecard wider than that is a robbery. What you're essentially making as an argument is. Well.... this guy stole 100 dollars from me, that's a robbery and an egregious one! But that guy, eh... he only stole 10 dollars from me. While also robbery.... I can live with that! Well I'm not a moral relativist. Stealing 100 dollars and stealing 10 dollars are both stealing. Haney fans had to literally turn themselves into ****ing pretzels to find that one extra round to give to him, and even then... they're saying, well, it could've gone either way! When you hear fans of the fighter who received a gift, merely offering up a measly "it could go either way" defense, instead of vociferously arguing that it was a surefire win. That's all the indication that you need to know, even in their hearts, while they refuse to admit it or are in denial. They know Lomachenko got ****ed.

 

No, that wasn't aimed at you, I was generalizing. But as you said, neither one deserved to win the fight, it should have been a draw. Even though I disagree with that, that's the point I was making, even though you picked Devin Haney, you still couldn't give him more than six rounds. Most of the pros and boxing journalists that watched the fight couldn't either. So if no one can feasibly find more than six rounds to give to the guy that won, then he didn't deserve to win, and it qualifies as a robbery. Especially when you consider the vast majority had Lomachenko winning by a round or two, meaning that you can feasibly find more than six rounds that the Loma won. Just because the fight is razor close, that doesn't rule out that it's a robbery. A draw would have been okay because neither would have won and neither would have lost, but the man who most thought lost... won, while the man who most thought won... lost, that is patently unfair.