In the case of Pacquiao the ratio is unfavorable. - Bradley, Horn and Sanchez clearly should have been wins. - The draw against Marquez would have been a victory if a judge had counted the three KDs. - The only time Pacquiao may have had an advantage is in the third fight against Marquez. And again, it's a very close fight, not a steal.
Horn was rescored 8 times. He could have easily lost the first 3. He has recieved plenty of benafit. Bradly is the only blatant.
Same thing i echoed, Though the Marquez 1 fight was very easy to score even without the 3 knockdown's he beat him up quite bad, people acting like he lost all the rounds after that a narrative they have been spinning for the longest, just plain lunacy.
Disagree here. There are the likes of Broner, who never got a loss he didn't fully deserve, but a number of wins he clearly didn't. Lots of upcoming prospects who get bogus decisions in their favor. And remember someone like Fernando Guerrero? If you didn't stop him he got the decision by default it seemed. Never saw a "prospect" with so many robberies to his name.
I tried googling Broner and Robbery. I didn't get the results I was looking for. I didn't say every single boxer this applies to. GGG got 2 very favorable decisions and lost 2 unfavorable decisions.
In terms of RBR scoring, I don’t think Pac had many true robberies aside from Bradley I. The main issue in boxing, which will always be an issue, is the scoring system. A good example is Pac-Marquez III: Marquez did more damage and won his rounds more convincingly than Pac, but I personally scored it a draw. Obviously the impression left = Marquez should have won. The Horn fight was iffy IMO, but I can see how someone favored the rugged style of Horn and giving him rounds.
2 very favorable decisions ? For Jacobs we can have 115-112 Golovkin without scandal. Derev was very tight but we can have 114-113 GGG at the end. Note that each time he scored a decisive KD in a tight fight.
The conversation centered around fighters getting the benafit and sometimes not. Both those fights were close. I thought GGG edged Jacobs but didferent judges could have gone another way. Nothing wrong with any of those scores. The knockdowns probably sealed the deal.
I see the Bradley fight much differently than most. I actually think Bradley did relatively well in the fight, obviously better defensively than offensively. I didn't think there was any way to legitimately score seven rounds for Bradley, but I do think there were five rounds that could have been scored for him. Many of Pacs impressive looking punches actually did not land or were glancing and Bradley showed good skills in the fight. I would consider it a bad decision but not a blatant robbery.
Golovkin won both those fights, don't know why they bring up the hoper Jacobs & even Derev, once again easy fights to score, the one's hoping he loses want to make it seem something it never was.
So you aren't able to score seven rounds for Bradley yet you say it wasn't a blatant robbery? Guess some people will always lean towards the alternative either way.
I feel being robbed on the cards in his previous fight with Bradley made Pacquiao act too over aggressive & eager since he didn't want another repeat of that happening but instead he got an even worse ending with Marquez stopping him, Funny that even then Marquez was caught stepping on Pacquiao's Foot when he finally landed that big punch, Either way just another great example of when Judge's continuously **** with a fighters Career in one match where it usually leads a domino effect causing a complete different trajectory for the fighter going forward by not just affecting his ranking, belts, but also his purse, Along with how the causals will now start to view & write about that fighter whether on Debate TV Shows or written Articles, it's as if the judges opinion that night is the Truth & nothing but the Truth, where in reality we know better.