BoxRec

TheDarkDestroyer wrote:

BitPlayer wrote:It was very close, so of course it goes to Hearn's fighter.

A bigger problem was every round after Chisora hurt Whyte he basically took it off due to the amount of energy he expended in the previous. Had he been able to keep up the kind of intensity he showed several times he'd have stopped Whyte and not given the judges a chance to decide the fight.

And if he just would have used hes superman punch in the first round he would have killed Whyte instantly.

There are some limits to the human performance you know

I had Chisora by two rounds.

It is pretty stupid that you need to win the fight by total domination or KO to win if you are not the house fighter.

Everything is a robbery these days. Someone doesn't like an outcome of an even fight and its a robbery.

Its a rigged system folks.

Judges gave Whyte the decision. Why? He is the up coming boxer, Chisora had nothing to lose, he has had his fair share of fights and eliminators. I had Chisora ahead by 2 rounds, but I can see why the judges would have given the rounds to Whyte, when Chisora was tired and used a round to get his strength back.

If 75% or so of people scored the fight to the loser then I'd say that claiming it's a robbery is justified.

Most people seem to have Chisora winning this.

Horse wrote:If 75% or so of people scored the fight to the loser then I'd say that claiming it's a robbery is justified.

Most people seem to have Chisora winning this.

Imo, when two gatekeepers battle it out in a close fight, the only ones that call it a robbery is those that probably lost money on it. Its not like Chisora dominated Whyte.

Chisora was not robbed.. Just because 3 judges don't agree with your subjective appraisal of a fight does not make it a robbery.

B.scene says 60%
People are like that and in close fights are still with the one that is lost, everything else is an exaggeration that we look after every close fight always so.

After watching another sparring session for Joshua, this was a decent fight. Why not a re-match?

As I posted on CS about the alleged Ruiz v Parker "robbery," the word carries no weight / meaning on Boxrec. Zer0

I think its absolutely fine to call a close fight a robbery when every single time we can predict with 100% accuracy the fighter that will get the nod in a close fight. It really doesnt matter who you score these fights for, they are obviously not being scored legitimately when there are almost no examples of the guy that brings in less money getting the nod in close fights.... What is tiring is how folks who are supposed to be fans of the sport go out of there way to ignore the obvious scoring bias and defend the corruption of judging!

I hear shit like "it was a close fight, a close card either way is fine" alot. That's usually the words of someone who watched passively and didn't really score the fight, round by round, using the proper scoring mechanics.

Chisira-Whyte had a 'close fight' feel about it because both guys had good spells and alot of punches landed, but breaking it down round-by-round Chisora won clearly. He gave took some rounds off which certainly went to Whyte but for the most part Del Boy took the fight to DW and was clearly the better fighter.

Ricky_ wrote:I hear poo like "it was a close fight, a close card either way is fine" alot. That's usually the words of someone who watched passively and didn't really score the fight, round by round, using the proper scoring mechanics.

Chisira-Whyte had a 'close fight' feel about it because both guys had good spells and alot of punches landed, but breaking it down round-by-round Chisora won clearly. He gave took some rounds off which certainly went to Whyte but for the most part Del Boy took the fight to DW and was clearly the better fighter.

The word "robbery" is routinely utilized by people (like you) to describe any decision that does not agree with your view of the outcome. In other words, "robbery" has evolved to mean "I disagree with the decision," on Boxrec.

Another of your pathetic characteristics is to belittle those who did not see a fight as you did, including those who scored the fight in favor of the same person you did but who are objective enough to understand how it could have been scored a different way. Do you have a predilection for brown shirts by chance?

Chisora is a clown! I hope he never becomes a world champion.

Ricky_ wrote:I hear poo like "it was a close fight, a close card either way is fine" alot. That's usually the words of someone who watched passively and didn't really score the fight, round by round, using the proper scoring mechanics.

Chisira-Whyte had a 'close fight' feel about it because both guys had good spells and alot of punches landed, but breaking it down round-by-round Chisora won clearly. He gave took some rounds off which certainly went to Whyte but for the most part Del Boy took the fight to DW and was clearly the better fighter.

I hear poo like "it was a robbery" a lot. That's usually the words of someone who fails to recognise that there are often multiple swing rounds in a fight that could fairly be scored to either fighter.

I'm honestly getting sick of people misusing the term 'robbery' on this forum. Clearly some people think it applies to any decision they disagree with, no matter how close.

It had draw written all over it! If not for the table throwing etc I think it might have been given a draw! All that stuff is not gonna help you in a close fight!

Here we go Ruiz/Chisora/Kovalev CLOSE FIGHT'S CERTAINLY NOT ROBEERIE'S

That was an incredible fight, I had it for Whyte but the pure quality of the contest did both fighters a lot of good I salute them superb.

Keko wrote:
Not again exaggeration close fight completely.

I didn't see Whyte-Chisora. But if it was anything like Ward-Kovalev or Parker-Ruiz it was no robbery. It read to me like another close fight.