I think it should say under the fight with Bruno Girad, "controversial decision". It was clearly controversial, and the HUGE split scorecards prove that as well. They were 117-111, 116-113, 111-117. Girad was later stripped of the title because he refused to give Siaca a rematch, a rematch that was ORDERED by the WBA because the first fight was controversial.
I also think the Siaca-Mitchell II fight should say controversial instead of questionable decision. I mean, there is not to many other fights on boxrec that say questionable (a few old ones did, but they have now been changed to controversial). If a fights questionable, it's controversial.
Manny Siaca
Consistency.
No?
I just recently saw these fights and to me (and I'm sure most who have seen them) they are just as controversial as some other fights that have that tag. I think it's just being consistent.
And also, I think his real name is MANUEL Siaca and not Manny Siaca.
I just recently saw these fights and to me (and I'm sure most who have seen them) they are just as controversial as some other fights that have that tag. I think it's just being consistent.
And also, I think his real name is MANUEL Siaca and not Manny Siaca.
But while there are such notations I think it is only fair to be consistent throughout the entire site. I mean, the quote under the Girad fight is intended to IMPLY that the fight was controversial. I believe it should just say it as it does for others.
And I also believe a questionable decision to be a controversial decision. The Mitchell-Siaca fight was on the undercard of Hopkins-Trindad and after watching it I thought that Siaca should have gotten the nod.
Remember, this is a guy who has lost 4 times, but THREE (!!) of those times were in world title fights. His fight with Girad was controversial and his fight with Mithcell (the rematch) was controversial. Also, in his first fight with Mitchell he had been down TWICE (ie. two points off his scorecard) and he was AHEAD on 2 of the 3 scorecards at the time of the KO (which was a dramatic last round KO).
Three unlucky attempts at a world title
And I also believe a questionable decision to be a controversial decision. The Mitchell-Siaca fight was on the undercard of Hopkins-Trindad and after watching it I thought that Siaca should have gotten the nod.
Remember, this is a guy who has lost 4 times, but THREE (!!) of those times were in world title fights. His fight with Girad was controversial and his fight with Mithcell (the rematch) was controversial. Also, in his first fight with Mitchell he had been down TWICE (ie. two points off his scorecard) and he was AHEAD on 2 of the 3 scorecards at the time of the KO (which was a dramatic last round KO).
Three unlucky attempts at a world title
Controversial decision is self evident in the fact that the scorecards were split. So the entry on either fight is unnecessary. 
If a news report on a quick stoppage, foul or a unanimous decision states that it was a hometown or controversial decision then we include it.
I agree that questional decision is too subjective.
If a news report on a quick stoppage, foul or a unanimous decision states that it was a hometown or controversial decision then we include it.
I agree that questional decision is too subjective.
Manuel
Yes, Questionable decision is definately too subjective. That's why it should be changed to controversial decision, only IMO of course.
When I'm looking through the site and I see a MD, SD or DRAW I never automatically conclude that the fight was controversial or questionable. I think the more information you can include about a fight the better. The inclusion of the "CONTROVERSIAL DECISION" is important as readers will look at the fight and know it was close and could have gone either way etc... and could lead to them buying fights to see who THEY believe one etc...
Under Girad I really think there should be a tidbit saying controversial decision on it's own seperate paragraph. Cause that fight was UNDOUBTEBLY controversial. With the second Mtichell fight, Questionable decision should be removed (definately). PERSONALLY, I would put controversial decision on it's own paragraph for this fight as well (I though Siaca bagged it), but that this fight was not AS BAD as the Girad fight.
By the way, his name is NOT Manny, it's MANUEL. I really think that needs changing. Name is probably the most important part of records like these. lol.
When I'm looking through the site and I see a MD, SD or DRAW I never automatically conclude that the fight was controversial or questionable. I think the more information you can include about a fight the better. The inclusion of the "CONTROVERSIAL DECISION" is important as readers will look at the fight and know it was close and could have gone either way etc... and could lead to them buying fights to see who THEY believe one etc...
Under Girad I really think there should be a tidbit saying controversial decision on it's own seperate paragraph. Cause that fight was UNDOUBTEBLY controversial. With the second Mtichell fight, Questionable decision should be removed (definately). PERSONALLY, I would put controversial decision on it's own paragraph for this fight as well (I though Siaca bagged it), but that this fight was not AS BAD as the Girad fight.
By the way, his name is NOT Manny, it's MANUEL. I really think that needs changing. Name is probably the most important part of records like these. lol.