what was the most controversial decision of all time??

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 24 Aug 2005, 23:24

i think hagler-leonard, though i think leonard won . i had it 115-114 SR.

People will just never come to an agreement of who won.

Rory McCloskey · Post by **Rory McCloskey** » 25 Aug 2005, 09:54

lewis holyfield was close.... braddock farr was close...im not really sure... i have so many close fights running through my head that i wouldnt be able to tell you the closest per say, but the hagler-srl one was close.... sugar ray didnt hurt hagler or punch him hard at ALL he just continuosly was throwing and landing punches that did nothing, so maybe the fact that hagler looked better then leanard would be the main reason people think it was a victory for hagler... if u go by amount of punches landed, and points, technical fights... then leanard won.. but if u go by power punches landed, and damage done then i woulda given it to hagler.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 25 Aug 2005, 10:24

Since it didn't go to a decision I'm not sure this one counts but the greatest personal robbery perpetrated on any one fighter was the night Richard Steele giftwrapped and put a ribbon on a fight and handed it to Chavez.

If boxing was a government it would be proper to issue a formal apology to Taylor. Perhaps Chuck Giampa and Richard Steele could do that for all of us. (If Chuck has taken the time since then to look closer at a fight he must have been sleeping through.)

Chuck? Richard? you listenin?

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 25 Aug 2005, 11:56

Eubank got a couple of decisions which were very debatable. Hagler-Antuofermo I was very debatable...

Nelson-Fenech I was also a dodgy decision.

ELA · Post by **ELA** » 25 Aug 2005, 12:47

JC Chavez vs Pernell Whitaker
Joe Louis vs Jersey Joe Walcott
Ali vs Norton III
Dave Tiberi vs James Toney

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 25 Aug 2005, 13:41

I wouldnt think "close" fights fit into this catagory unless you have a passion for a certain fighter and you were hurt by a close decision going against your chosen fighter.

It's the mile wide blind judge fights that belong here.

meade95 · Post by **meade95** » 25 Aug 2005, 13:58

Fenech Vs Azumah Nelson - I - was definitely an awful decision - I mean Fenech not only won (based on punches) but more importantly he "took" the fight to Nelson the whole 12 rounds -

This is exactly how one is supposed to have to win the Title! By taking the fight to the champion -

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 25 Aug 2005, 15:57

Nelson Fenech that has credibility. Have there been any blind robberies lately? Ruiz or Byrd have any recently? Were those close enough to go either way? Or just blind nonsense. Oquendo comes to mind somewhat.

I have always thought the draw in the first Lewis/Holyfield was downright laughable even with the "champions edge". And I did not have a favorite in that one if anything at the time I would have favored Holyfield ever so slightly.

sharkeysboy · Post by **sharkeysboy** » 25 Aug 2005, 23:08

Ward-Gatti I. No one called it controversial because it was such a great fight and everybody wanted to see the rematch which probably wouldn't have happened if Ward hadn't gotten the decision. But Gatti clearly won the fight. It was Ward's for the taking after that amazing 9th round but he had nothing left for the 10th and Gatti came back in the 10th and won it in my humble opionion. All the ringsiders also were saying Gatti won but didn't cause a stir because they knew the rematch would be so good for HBO. I have no problem with Ward getting the break because I like him. But Gatti won the fight.

meade95 · Post by **meade95** » 26 Aug 2005, 00:21

BoxBuzz wrote:Nelson Fenech that has credibility. Have there been any blind robberies lately? Ruiz or Byrd have any recently? Were those close enough to go either way? Or just blind nonsense. Oquendo comes to mind somewhat.

I have always thought the draw in the first Lewis/Holyfield was downright laughable even with the "champions edge". And I did not have a favorite in that one if anything at the time I would have favored Holyfield ever so slightly.

To be honest with you I have always felt the second fight between Holyfield / Lewis was just as bad a decision as the first fight -

Holyfield won the second fight clearly to me - He forced the action completely, shook Lewis up twice (but didn't have the youth / legs to finish him), he landed by far the better shots in the fight (while Lennox landed many pitty pat type punches) Lewis never pressed or engaged throughout the entire fight, etc, etc -

I think their second fight was a make-up for the first one - The TV announcers were terrible in the second fight as well - Very pro-Lewis (because of the first fight outcome) - Those at ringside...like 80% of the pundits at ringside thought Holyfiled won the second fight -

Hell even Manny Stewert here in Detriot has been quoted in the Free Press saying he felt the second fight could have went to Holyfield....That is saying a ton coming from Lennox's own trainer.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 26 Aug 2005, 10:26

I'm not sure I totaly disagree with that. But the second fight seemed more competitive. And if one was looking for justice over the entire 24 rounds one might say that the second fight had the right "total" outcome.

I don't find the judges decision as implausible or outraguous as the first fight so I didn't mention it. Very very close fights can be judged wrongly and many folks can disagree. It's the more "errant" ones that are amusing/frustrating when we go back and look at the tapes.

meade95 · Post by **meade95** » 26 Aug 2005, 11:28

BoxBuzz wrote:I'm not sure I totaly disagree with that. But the second fight seemed more competitive. And if one was looking for justice over the entire 24 rounds one might say that the second fight had the right "total" outcome.

I don't find the judges decision as implausible or outraguous as the first fight so I didn't mention it. Very very close fights can be judged wrongly and many folks can disagree. It's the more "errant" ones that are amusing/frustrating when we go back and look at the tapes.

I agree with you here concerning "close fights" and how they could go either way - But I've watched the Holyfield Vs Lennox II fight about 6 times and every time I watch it...it is clearer and clearer that Holyfield won going away -

I think it was just as bad as the first fight -

I think it was Burt Sugar (not certain off the top of my head) but he wrote an article explaining the first Holyfield Vs Lewis....in saying the decision wasn't as bad as many think....in that in the rounds Lewis won....he won big! (rounds where holyfield did hardly nothing)....but there were rounds that were close...and Holyfield stole those rounds....and so while the impression of the fight is Lennox won easily.....that is based on the rounds Lennox won...that he really dominated those rounds.....

But in boxing all rounds are mostly 10-9 (without a kd)...so if you win rounds big....or steal them....in the end they are worth the same amount -

Thus giving you a decision like we got in the Holy Vs Lennox I -

I just see their second fight as every bit of a bad decision as their first fight - Hell Holy was never hurt in their first fight....(he just did't do much) - Lennox was rocked twice in their second match, pushed around and completely fighting a defensive fight for 11 of the 12 rounds (if Holyfield had younger legs he would have stopped him).