BoxRec

mickey1975 wrote:after wharton-o'toole,there was absolute uproar.i was at ringside that night,though,and nobody seemed outraged.it was a VERY pro-wharton crowd mind

I was going to suggest that one.

It was an awful decision.

I just don't know how the ref saw it for Wharton; but like you said about the crowd, the ref may have been a bit intimidated.

The Needham v Cowdell nothing worse than that. DD

Scrap wrote:The Needham v Cowdell nothing worse than that. DD

Scrap how did you see the Cooper v Bugner fight out of interest

harrison polo is one that sticks out for me. i had polo by 2 clear

Can't remember if this was here in the UK or Ireland tbh:

Ray Close v Chris Eubank

and

Lenzi Morgan v Nigel Benn

and

Willie Jorrin v Michael Brodie

colin lynes win over pablo sarmiento of italy had a touch of the "home" about it. but the Italians got their revenge eventually via signor branco

Harry, it was a funny one I thought it was tight. Polotics of the time that if it was close, there was only going to be one winner. I was told by someone in the camp Cooper was on top Dollar for the Defence, so they Bought the Title is one way of looking at it

I remember Kirkland laing losing for the Euro title in Italy years ago, rounds, where he was on top had the bell rung after like 2 mins and when the Italian was on top, I think one lasted as much as 5 mins

I think of Kirkland and think what could have been

Bernard Paul V Felix Bawala , for the Commonwealth. Felix looked a comfortable winner, by the ref (who scored it at that time) raised Pauls hand- I don't think Felix actually knew he had lost at that point, rather he was waiting for an announced decision.

Paul than lost the belt to Paul Burke, who then went over to Africa (how rare is that) to give Bawala a rematch- I think this too was somewhat controversial- Bawala won the fight, but sadly died shortly after.

Can anyone think of one where there were three judges- That is to say, 2 out of the three (or even all three) got it wrong.

Vanzie v Earl was a shocker.

Nelson v Jones was a shocker.

Dunne v Jacobs was outrageous.

What about was it Noel Wilders v the Spanish/Italian/French fella, cannot remember his name.

Two of the 3 Armour vs Ampofo fights - especially the 2nd one... doublely controvesial that 1) Majority thought Ampofo nicked it... 2) It would have been a draw if it wasn't for some very daft WBU ruling - a majority draw (two cards giving it a draw) didn't exist with the WBU. In this fight 2 cards scored it a draw - one to armour... in this case Armour got the decision.

Scrap wrote:I think of Kirkland and think what could have been

I think of Kirkland and I think of a huge reefer........

Lewis v Holyfield 1 - Disgrace

Frazer , Thats Funny lmbo

[quote="bengulnaci1"]Can't remember if this was here in the UK or Ireland tbh:

Ray Close v Chris Eubank

and

Lenzi Morgan v Nigel Benn

and

Willie Jorrin v Michael Brodie[/quote]
Exactly the one I was thinking of. The home man got jobbed!

Any fight scored by Michael Alexander.

He is programmed to raise the hand of the house fighter, regardless.

A few of his decisions on the undercard of Munroe vs Martinez II were very questionable, IMO.

Munroe vs Martinez I was badly scored, one had it even, the other two 115-113.... it wasn't that much closer than their rematch.

David P,
I don't think the Nelson result was a "shocker".
Debateable I give you.
However given the outcome of the drugs test for Jones after, and his lengthy ban, one could say he got what he deserved.

were you there, scrap, when lynes got the nod over sarmiento? i was among the lynes mob and i still felt that pablo was.... not exactly robbed but (considering the situation) lifted of his crown.
ampofo deserved a little better than what he got against the ramsgate ramrod

DavidPayne wrote:Dunne v Jacobs was outrageous.

Mr Payne - for me that fight was the very worst - agree or not??

Woodhal v Catley. I think that is the only time I've ever seen a boxer getting the decision he didn't deserve and saying "I didn't win that"