Two questions:

DeuceOfSpades · Post by **DeuceOfSpades** » 20 May 2004, 01:50

Why have all the "controversial decision" comments been removed? I noticed this a while ago.

Also, how about including "lineal" titles in the divisions? Fans talk about the lineal champs all the time so I think it would be very convenient if you guys included it in your records.

Thanks!

HOGBEAR · Post by **HOGBEAR** » 20 May 2004, 23:15

The worst part is that not all of the "controversial decision" comments have been removed, just some of them. So while the first Holyfield vs. Lewis fight is labeled just "DRAW," irrelevant fights such as Larry Holmes vs. Mo Harris still have the controversial tag. In my opinion, boxrec should either remove them all or figure out a system to include them.

As for lineal titles, it seems to be the cool thing these days to rail against them. So while the boxrec takes pains to follow every IBU, IBE, IBO, WBN, and WBB champion, you'll have to go to the CyberBoxingZone to trace lineal champs.

Blue · Post by **Blue** » 21 May 2004, 03:02

A controversial decision is of, relating to, or arousing a controversy which is a discussion marked by the expression of opposing views.

Here is an earlier discussion on the subject,
http://www.boxrec.com/phpBB2/viewtopic. ... l+decision

The following thread was a specific fight comment which I was involed in.
http://www.boxrec.com/phpBB2/viewtopic. ... l+decision

Needless to say my comment has been since removed.

I could put it back…but it would just be changed again.

The site is ruled by egalitarianism which is a fancy word for a group trap.

HOGBEAR · Post by **HOGBEAR** » 21 May 2004, 10:45

I really don't care if "dives" aren't noted. The fighter who takes a dive should have the ugly KO mark on his record without explanation if he's willing to do something so dishonorable.

Lewis/Holyfield is one of the worst decisions in heavyweight CHAMPIONSHIP history, so I don't see the controversy in having a "controversial" comment—especially if you're keeping "controversial" comments for such outrages as Josh Wicks SD4 Gregg Kubert.

Matt · Post by **Matt** » 21 May 2004, 11:33

If you see any controversial decision tags in bouts during the last 30 years, post them here. We will then delete them. Split decisions, draws, and majority decisions are controversial by the nature of their scores.

My theory is that after 30 years or so, people can at least quote newspapers, and at least put things in context. After that amount of time, results are less fresh in peoples mind. I think you can add to the data, rather than hurt it, if you put it in the proper context.

Short term, there is no business listing controversial decisions, unless you can note that they were investigated, reversed, or whatever. That doesn't really happen all that often, and would probably fall under a description that would be considered an unusual circumstance.

delisa · Post by **delisa** » 21 May 2004, 11:43

I am with Matt.

HOGBEAR · Post by **HOGBEAR** » 21 May 2004, 11:47

tegenm wrote:If you see any controversial decision tags in bouts during the last 30 years, post them here. We will then delete them.

Bowe-Tubbs
Holmes-Spinks
Holmes-Spinks II
Holmes-C.Williams
Holmes-'Spoon
E.Morales-Barrera
E.Morales-Barrera II
E.Morales-Espades
Ali-Norton II
Ali-Norton III
Ali-Young

Diane · Post by **Diane** » 22 May 2004, 16:44

HOGBEAR wrote:
tegenm wrote:If you see any controversial decision tags in bouts during the last 30 years, post them here. We will then delete them.
Bowe-Tubbs
Holmes-Spinks
Holmes-Spinks II
Holmes-C.Williams
Holmes-'Spoon
E.Morales-Barrera
E.Morales-Barrera II
E.Morales-Espades
Ali-Norton II
Ali-Norton III
Ali-Young

JCC-Frankie Randell

Blue · Post by **Blue** » 22 May 2004, 18:18

I think U mean JCC-Frankie Randall II

Diane · Post by **Diane** » 22 May 2004, 18:21

Blue wrote:I think U mean JCC-Frankie Randall II

Oh sorry I did not know you needed to post what fight I wasn't looking for fight 1 or 2 but it's there.
Thanks

HOGBEAR · Post by **HOGBEAR** » 01 Jun 2004, 13:03

tegenm wrote:If you see any controversial decision tags in bouts during the last 30 years, post them here. We will then delete them.

What about "controversial stoppage"?

"Controversial stoppage. Calzaghe down for the first time in his career in Round 2, but gets up to floor Mitchell less than a minute later." (From Calzaghe vs. Mitchell.)

Blue · Post by **Blue** » 02 Jun 2004, 03:31

What if the roles were reversed and it was Clazaghe who went down 2nd.

Do U think the referee would have stopped it?

In Joe’s hometown?

I wonder where the term hometown decision came from?

Eric the Viking · Post by **Eric the Viking** » 02 Jun 2004, 12:06

Blue wrote: What if the roles were reversed and it was Clazaghe who went down 2nd.
Do U think the referee would have stopped it?
In Joe?s hometown?
I wonder where the term hometown decision came from?

Possibly - but unless the overwhelming majority of (non-Welsh ;)) sportswriters who wrote about the bout agreed that it was controversial, that seems highly subjective. By your criterion, roughly half of Dariusz Michalczewski's stoppages would be controversial - and I'm not saying they weren't, just that different people can disagree on these things.

HOGBEAR · Post by **HOGBEAR** » 02 Jun 2004, 13:00

Blue wrote: What if the roles were reversed and it was Clazaghe who went down 2nd.
Do U think the referee would have stopped it?
In Joe’s hometown?
I wonder where the term hometown decision came from?

I'm not arguing whether or not the stoppage was controversial (I think it was a bad stoppage); I'm arguing that if you note "controversial stoppage" for this one, what's keeping you from noting "controversial stoppage" for Tyson/Ruddock, Chavez/Taylor, or countless other stoppages that were much higher-profile than Calzaghe/Mitchell.

Again, it's a slippery slope. I say either come up with a criteria for including "controversial" comments or delete them all, just as you're now doing for "controversial decision."

Matt · Post by **Matt** » 02 Jun 2004, 13:16

I think controversial stoppage is only relevant if it explains something else that arose from the stoppage. For example the Hagler-Minter stoppage led to a riot. The Tszyu-Judah stoppage led to Judah attacking the referee and getting fined and suspended.

Even there, I don't think the words controversial stoppage need to be given, since it is obvious someone felt the stoppage was controversial by the description. You can use a description like "Referee stopped the bout, after Jones ripped a hole in his trunks.", which is fact based, but open to the interpretation of the reader, to whether or not it is controversial.