Why have the Controversial Decision comments been removed?

FreeIkemefula · Post by **FreeIkemefula** » 11 Jan 2004, 20:57

I loved that feature. In fact, I have purchased many fights that were labelled here to mae up m own mind. I hope you guys put it back. Just saying a fight is controversial is just stating the reaction of the fans and media. Does anyone know why this has been removed?

brett · Post by **brett** » 11 Jan 2004, 23:52

While the comments are a constant source of debate among the editors, I know of no specific effort to remove them. Can you provide specific fights from which they were removed?

Regards,

FreeIkemefula · Post by **FreeIkemefula** » 14 Jan 2004, 02:30

Well, for one Oscar/Mosley2. First off, I would like to say this is one of the greatest sites on the web. I liked those biography boxes it used to have. I enjoy the comments below the fights alot. I figured the Editors debate what should be dubbed a controversial decision or not. My point is, there really is nothing to debate. For example,I don't think Oscar De La Hoya/Pernell Whitaker is a controversial fight. I think the judges got it right, but there was a conroversy about the scorecards, not really if Oscar won. ....but my point is there was controversy. I just like it when the controversy is acknowledged. Another that bothered me was the Draw Mercer had with Marion Wilson. It used to say most thought Wilson won, but now it is just a draw. I would like to see more of that feature, that is all. I don't mean to criticize. I love this site regardless. I just like the comments..more is better, imo.

delisa · Post by **delisa** » 14 Jan 2004, 10:15

It is virtually useless to write controversial -- anyone who spends any time at the fights or researching reports will find tens of thousands of "controversial" fights.

For me, it is bordering on a pet peeve to see "controversial decision" as a comment.

Matt · Post by **Matt** » 14 Jan 2004, 13:14

If I enter a controversial decision for an older bout I try to at least put it in context by explaining the circumstances involved, or who felt is was controversial. Problem with doing it for modern fights, is like Mike says, thousands of people have seen the bout, and have come up with a wide range of opinions. So naturally, you are going to piss off a certain portion of people.

delisa · Post by **delisa** » 14 Jan 2004, 14:29

Yeah, for historical purposes, I think it is ok to say "Damon Runyon called this the worst decision in 30 years" or "several fans threw chairs into the ring in protest of the decision"

But to simply note "controversial decision" is lame and a waste of space.

More so when it is a draw or split decision -- of course it is controversial!

Blue · Post by **Blue** » 14 Jan 2004, 17:37

I agree with FreeIkemefula on the controversy Mercer had with Marion Wilson
But, I also agree with Mike that a split, majority or draw is self evident.

Matt’s idea to at least put it in context by explaining the circumstances involved, or who felt is was controversial (Reference) is spot on.

Today’s entries are historical reports in the future.
As long as we don’t editorialize and there’s a reference, I see no harm in noting controversial decisions in the comments field.

delisa · Post by **delisa** » 14 Jan 2004, 18:03

Another problem I have is that there are so many "controversial" decisions in boxing that a vast majority of bouts could be labeled "controversial" -- by selecting which ones to mark "controversial" you are making an editorial decision rather than reporting facts.

By stating one fight is controversial, but not marking another, you lead to problems.

An exception to this of course is ewhen a specific cite is made -- "Eddie o'Niel called it a roberry." Then again, do we really need "Harold Lederman called it a draw, even though the judges had it unanimous for X">?

So, short of throwing chairs, or admitted fixed fights, etc -- I say leave it alone

Blue · Post by **Blue** » 14 Jan 2004, 19:56

Sorry to disagree Mike,

I personally would want to know about a decision marked by the expression of opposing views.
I would even go as far as to include a link along with the reference.
It would not effect anything as the official decison still stands.

Of course all this would be moot if a reference field link were to be included as I have requested in the past.

FreeIkemefula · Post by **FreeIkemefula** » 15 Jan 2004, 03:36

I agree with the comments about a Controversial decison is a not a really telling comment, but I like the suggestion that many opinion polls had DLH winning the rematch by X or something. I disagree strongly that a split decision or a draw is controversial on its face. I have seen fights on ESPN 2 in which the hometown guy wins or loses a split decision which should have been a UD..a clear UD. Something is better than nothing. It is the only justice a wronged fighter can get sometimes, specifically in case of Marion Wilson, but other "opponet also rans" who came close to winning a big fight, but were wronged. At any rate, keep up the good work. I am just voicing my own opinion. This site is top notch and the editors here do a fine job.

Diane · Post by **Diane** » 22 May 2004, 16:38

I don't know about you but I would rather see the "Controversial" in there becuase thats how it was to begin with!
I think That if you started out that way it should stay that way!
I just saw another fighters name in the Delahoyas Record and it stated "CONTROVERSIAL" now tell me what is the differene?!

Ric · Post by **Ric** » 06 Jun 2004, 05:07

Here we go, once again, with that superfluous comment.
Regarding tonight's De La Hoya vs Sturm bout:
http://www.boxrec.com/boxer_display.php?boxer_id=031252