Your personal "Robbery" criteria

No you can't just say say "it's only 1 round different" that's not a logical argument.

For me a robbery is if I find it inconceivable to reach that score.

So I think Golovkin beat Canelo, but I can see Canelo being awarded the rounds so it's no robbery.

This is a subjective sport and that should be applauded imo.

For me a robbery is very rare. Like Williams vs Lara were it was so one sided I thought they might pull Williams out before the end of the fight, that's a robbery for me.

Martinez vs Cintron were it's a mammoth task justifying 6 rounds for Kermit.

So for me a robbery is a rare event.

I see some in here absolutely losing their **** because a judge disagrees with them, that's not a robbery.

A robbery is if you can't agree with the judge, imo.

 

For me a robbery is when at least one judge clearly gives a round for boxer A to boxer B and that changes the final decision.

Examples: Feldman gives Canelo round 7 against Golovkin.
The three judges give Ward round 10 against Kovalev.
Two judges give Wilder round 7 against Fury

 

118-110

 

That whole alejandro rochin scorecard was a travesty.

 

To take away any personal bias, i call it a robbery when the consensus of opinion regarding a announced result is WTF.

 

I'm guessing you mean Trella who judged the first match and gave Canelo round 7. Feldman judged the rematch and gave Canelo Round 7 in the rematch which wouldn't have changed the outcome.

If you're referring to Trella's scoring of round 7 in the first match, he also gave rounds 3-6 to GGG each of which could have been scored for Canelo. So depending on which wrongly scored round you focus on, you could make the case that the scoring of any of these rounds would have changed the final decision.

 

Example: Leonard Hagler- Hagler was the constant aggressor, landed the heavier punches. Leonard ran and threw mostly arm punches, most of which either didn't land or were parried. I never scored it less than two points ahead for Hagler.

 

Good thread, OP... I tend to abide by the “no robberies in close fights” maxim because the judging criteria (clean/hard shots, defense, effective aggression, ring generalship) are weighted differently by each judge and subjective in nature (as they should be, there being levels to all of them).

However, the current 3 judge system is ridiculous because one outlier or minority view can radically alter a decision because math... There should be a jury of 12 or at minimum 5 or 7 to account for that.

In true robberies, you can usually sense it far before the decision is announced through the actions of the referees: dubious KDs or non-KDs, deducting points from the B-side under dubious circumstances, breaking up clinches when the B-side is dominating them... Seen too many of those in prospect fights. Phantom compu box stats are telling as well... it feels like I’m being “gaslit” sometimes.

 

Great point, compubox numbers really have done a number on convincing the masses that a robbery has occurred. Because what happens is fans are fed compubox numbers while watching a match then expect the person who compubox says landed more to win, and that's not how judges score rounds. Scoring rounds isn't about countng punches and trying to determine who landed more, it's who landed the better punches, who landed more clean flush punches that made an impact, who performed better in the round, etc.

So not only is compubox flawed as an idea as it relates to how to score rounds, but it's also guesswork as far as which punches landed, and in terms of every landed punch not being the same.

 

It can also be used in the reverse to justify a robbery

 

In some cases compubox can even be used to debunk robbery claims, like for example, by looking at specific rounds that people disagreed with judges scores and seeing compubox having landed punches relatively even or something. The problem is it's hard to tell if compubox numbers are accurate and useful or if they are wrong and misleading.

 

Yes I wanted to talk about Trella in the first fight.

It is not comparable. We can give Golovkin 3-6s perfectly and I think he dominates rounds 4-6. On the other hand, round 7 is by far the clearest round of the fight. It's 80-20 Golovkin.

 

I wish I could turn that **** off the way I invariably mute all commentary... It doesn’t swing my opinion of who’s winning because of my thoroughgoing mistrust, but seeing inaccurate tallies makes my blood pressure rise and especially when it’s biased towards an underperforming A side (Dirrell v. Davis was a recent example of this... luckily the official scoring didn’t reflect that).

 

I agree that Round 7 was more clear of a GGG round than rounds 4-6 were for Canelo. It was even more dominant of a round for GGG than rounds 8 and 9 were. However, rounds 4-6 were each extremely close and could be argued for either fighter. If we're being honest, Rounds 4-6 were pretty even for the most part and each could have gone either way. And Round 3 was a very clear round for Canelo. Not quite as clear of a Canelo round than Round 7 was for GGG, as GGG landed more in Round 3 than Canelo did in Round 7, however what Canelo did land in Round 7 was more impressive than what GGG landed in Round 3 by a mile. Even Lederman the unofficial HBO scorer who scored the match for GGG gave that round to Canelo.

So we're talking about ONE judge scoring a clear GGG round 7 to Canelo. And we're talking about TWO judges scoring round 3, a pretty clear round for Canelo, to GGG. You could easily give any rounds 3-6 to Canelo especially round 3, but all were given to GGG. So you have a fair point about Round 7, but it's offset by giving each round 3-6, where at least one if not two of those rounds should / could have gone to Canelo.

 

Personally I give round 3 to Golovkin but it's 50-50, I could give it to Canelo.
On the other hand in my eyes the 4-5-6 rounds are clearly for Golovkin, it is at least 60-40, even 70-30 in terms of domination.

http://www.eyeonthering.com/boxing/gennady-golovkin-vs-saul-alvarez