BoxRec

I believe Urango fought a guy named Rabah and the decision was awful.

When did a close fight become a robbery? A lot of these fights being listed here were a one or two round swing. Thats not "the biggest robbery."

Greb-Tunney II was considered a blatantly corrupt robbery. Foreman-Schulz was awful. Mando Ramos-Carrasco 1 was one of the most ridiculous Ive ever seen. I thought Patterson-Ellis was a robbery but a lot of people who I highly respect disagree with me so I'll leave that one out. Escalera-Everette. Ali-Jimmy Young was pretty bad. I havent watched Toney-Tiberi in years but that one was bad. Paulie Ayala had about three or four of the worst decisions Ive ever seen in a row in his favor with the win over Hugo Dianzo being the worst of them. He could have lost every round of that fight easily but they gave him the win. Flowers-McTigue was supposedly a horrible decision.

SFW wrote:I believe Urango fought a guy named Rabah and the decision was awful.

Yeah that was a pretty awful decision

RadioElRadar wrote:Not corrupt disgraces like some already mentioned but the following decisions went quite strongly against how I saw the fights:

Eusebio Pedroza SD Rocky Lockridge (1st fight) - I had 145-141 Lockridge but two judges had it 147-141 and 149-139 for Pedroza. The latter card beggars belief imo.

Jeff Fenech D Azumah Nelson (1st fight) - I had 117-113 Fenech (7-3-2) and really can't see a case for a 116-112 Nelson card

James Toney UD Vassily Jirov - No problem with Toney getting the nod (I had it 113-113, 7-5 Jirov minus a point each for the low blow deduction and the KD) but I thought the cards (117-109 x2 & 116-110) were too wide

I rewatched Fenech v Nelson I not long ago. I had it 8-4 Fenech.I like to think I'm unbiased when scoring fights, but That decision stunk

RadioElRadar wrote: James Toney UD Vassily Jirov - No problem with Toney getting the nod (I had it 113-113, 7-5 Jirov minus a point each for the low blow deduction and the KD) but I thought the cards (117-109 x2 & 116-110) were too wide

Your explanation doesn't constitute a robbery.

thunderfromdownunder wrote:

RadioElRadar wrote:Not corrupt disgraces like some already mentioned but the following decisions went quite strongly against how I saw the fights:

Eusebio Pedroza SD Rocky Lockridge (1st fight) - I had 145-141 Lockridge but two judges had it 147-141 and 149-139 for Pedroza. The latter card beggars belief imo.

Jeff Fenech D Azumah Nelson (1st fight) - I had 117-113 Fenech (7-3-2) and really can't see a case for a 116-112 Nelson card

James Toney UD Vassily Jirov - No problem with Toney getting the nod (I had it 113-113, 7-5 Jirov minus a point each for the low blow deduction and the KD) but I thought the cards (117-109 x2 & 116-110) were too wide

I rewatched Fenech v Nelson I not long ago. I had it 8-4 Fenech.I like to think I'm unbiased when scoring fights, but That decision stunk

x2

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

RadioElRadar wrote: James Toney UD Vassily Jirov - No problem with Toney getting the nod (I had it 113-113, 7-5 Jirov minus a point each for the low blow deduction and the KD) but I thought the cards (117-109 x2 & 116-110) were too wide

Your explanation doesn't constitute a robbery.

Yeah I know, it's not by any means - it was just one of those ones I could think of off the top of my head where I was genuinely surprised by the cards. It doesn't really belong here tbf.

I thought these more recent fights could be seen as gifts if not straight-up robberies:

Mike Jones MD Jesus Soto Karass (1st fight)
Devon Alexander SD Lucas Matthysse

Reid v Ottke was very frustrating

bugs wrote:Reid v Ottke was very frustrating

That ref was awful. Not quite up (or down) to the standards of Isidro Rodriguez, the ref of Coggi/Gonzalez I, but still awful.

When does a bad decision become a robbery?

Sometimes a guy wins his rounds clearly and on the whole has “won” the fight…but the round scoring or points system doesn’t reflect this.

Great question.
For some people it's simply when the guy they wanted to win didn't get the decision.
To me, it when you could give one guy every round that you reasonably could and he still didn't do enough.

I think you have to look at each round individually. Judge a round, and note if it was close enough to reasonably be scored for the other guy. Then when the fight is over and the fighter that you thought deserved to win didn't, go over your scorecard. Give every close round to the guy that you didn't think deserved to win. If he still doesn't win, then it's a robbery. However, if by giving him every close round (and of course the rounds he won clearly) he then had enough point, it is not a robbery. It is just a fight you disagree with.

For example; you think Fighter A won this fight and this is how you scored the rounds:

1. A won.
2. A won
3. A won, but close.
4. B won
5. B won
6. A won.
7. A won, but close.
8. B won
9. A won, but close.
10. A won.

You scored it 7-3 for Fighter A. However, if you give B all the close rounds, fighter B he wins 6-4. That is not a robbery. That is just a fight that you disagree with.

In another fight, if you scored the rounds of the fight like this, it would a robbery:
1. A won.
2. A won
3. A won
4, A won, but close.
5. B won
6. A won, but close.
7. A won.
8. B won, but close.
9. B won.
10.A won.

You scored it 8-2. Even if you give B rounds 4 and 6, he still loses 6-4. If Fighter B gets the decision, it would be a robbery. Fighter B was getting rounds socred for him that he had no reasonable claim to.

Ambling Alp II wrote:Great question.
For some people it's simply when the guy they wanted to win didn't get the decision.
To me, it when you could give one guy every round that you reasonably could and he still didn't do enough.

I think you have to look at each round individually. Judge a round, and note if it was close enough to reasonably be scored for the other guy. Then when the fight is over and the fighter that you thought deserved to win didn't, go over your scorecard. Give every close round to the guy that you didn't think deserved to win. If he still doesn't win, then it's a robbery. However, if by giving him every close round (and of course the rounds he won clearly) he then had enough point, it is not a robbery. It is just a fight you disagree with.

For example; you think Fighter A won this fight and this is how you scored the rounds:

1. A won.
2. A won
3. A won, but close.
4. B won
5. B won
6. A won.
7. A won, but close.
8. B won
9. A won, but close.
10. A won.

You scored it 7-3 for Fighter A. However, if you give B all the close rounds, fighter B he wins 6-4. That is not a robbery. That is just a fight that you disagree with.

In another fight, if you scored the rounds of the fight like this, it would a robbery:
1. A won.
2. A won
3. A won
4, A won, but close.
5. B won
6. A won, but close.
7. A won.
8. B won, but close.
9. B won.
10.A won.

You scored it 8-2. Even if you give B rounds 4 and 6, he still loses 6-4. If Fighter B gets the decision, it would be a robbery. Fighter B was getting rounds socred for him that he had no reasonable claim to.

In your second example a draw wouldn't have been a robbery, right? Also, it looks like the score for fight 2 was 7-3.
Good explanation, though.

It seems like when a popular or TV fighter wins a close decision it also feel like a robbery.

I accept home town decisions as a aprt of all sports. But when you know a guy is favoured because he amkes more money it sticks in the throat

Off hand I can't think of any decision worse than Whitaker v Chavez. I had Pernell winning 118-111.

Never saw the fight, but I heard from at least one source that Ocasio over Qawi was pretty bad.

Yeah,I'll never forget Whitaker-Chavez. I watched that fight and after,I actually lost a lot of interest in boxing after that. And,for myself that was a huge thing. I used to breathe the sport. Was involved since I was a kid etc. I didn't even get pissed at the fight. I just thought,well,if this is gonna be how it is,I'm out. Of course years later my interest returned. You can't ever get it completely out of your system. I'm certain of that. Once you get hooked,you're hooked.

Ezzard wrote:When does a bad decision become a robbery?

Sometimes a guy wins his rounds clearly and on the whole has “won” the fight…but the round scoring or points system doesn’t reflect this.

The difference for me lies in the swing rounds. If you can't give the winning fighter every benefit of the doubt and come up with him winning than it's a robbery. If you go against yourself in close rounds and can stretch it to that fighter winning it's just a bad decision.

Alexander/Matthysse = Bad Decision
Abril/Rios = Robbery

Rover wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote:Great question.
For some people it's simply when the guy they wanted to win didn't get the decision.
To me, it when you could give one guy every round that you reasonably could and he still didn't do enough.

I think you have to look at each round individually. Judge a round, and note if it was close enough to reasonably be scored for the other guy. Then when the fight is over and the fighter that you thought deserved to win didn't, go over your scorecard. Give every close round to the guy that you didn't think deserved to win. If he still doesn't win, then it's a robbery. However, if by giving him every close round (and of course the rounds he won clearly) he then had enough point, it is not a robbery. It is just a fight you disagree with.

For example; you think Fighter A won this fight and this is how you scored the rounds:

1. A won.
2. A won
3. A won, but close.
4. B won
5. B won
6. A won.
7. A won, but close.
8. B won
9. A won, but close.
10. A won.

You scored it 7-3 for Fighter A. However, if you give B all the close rounds, fighter B he wins 6-4. That is not a robbery. That is just a fight that you disagree with.

In another fight, if you scored the rounds of the fight like this, it would a robbery:
1. A won.
2. A won
3. A won
4, A won, but close.
5. B won
6. A won, but close.
7. A won.
8. B won, but close.
9. B won.
10.A won.

You scored it 8-2. Even if you give B rounds 4 and 6, he still loses 6-4. If Fighter B gets the decision, it would be a robbery. Fighter B was getting rounds socred for him that he had no reasonable claim to.

In your second example a draw wouldn't have been a robbery, right? Also, it looks like the score for fight 2 was 7-3.
Good explanation, though.

Yeah I goofed that 2nd example up a little. It should have said -You scored it 7-3 and it could fairly scored a draw if you give him both of the close rounds that you gave fighter A. But it would be a robbery if fighter B got a victory. He had to have been given rounds that he had no reasonable claim to.

You really have to accept that someone else can on occasion reasonably disagree with you. Some fights which may be fairly close in scoring were actually easy to score because the individual rounds were easy to score.
Most of the time, if you really watch a round closely, you can tell without too much question who won that particular round. However, occasionally there are some fights have a lot of close rounds and you can justifiably see wide ranging scorecards or scorecards that are a bit different than your own.

You also have to watch every part of the round closely. If someone asked at any random moment in the round how you see it so far, you should be able to answer them immediately.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

Ezzard wrote:When does a bad decision become a robbery?

Sometimes a guy wins his rounds clearly and on the whole has “won” the fight…but the round scoring or points system doesn’t reflect this.

The difference for me lies in the swing rounds. If you can't give the winning fighter every benefit of the doubt and come up with him winning than it's a robbery. If you go against yourself in close rounds and can stretch it to that fighter winning it's just a bad decision.

Alexander/Matthysse = Bad Decision
Abril/Rios = Robbery

Yep, that's my yardstick as well-could I possibly have scored it the other way? If I could, then it's not a robbery.

Even then, it should be decisive to be a robbery. Like in the Rios example you gave, I can't see him winning five rounds, even at my most generous. But he got, what, an 8-4 verdict (on two cards) the other way? Robbery.

Anybody see Courtney Burton - Emanuel Augustus 1. That was a ROBBERY. From start to finish you knew Augustus was getting shafted that night. He did.

Expug wrote:Anybody see Courtney Burton - Emanuel Augustus 1. That was a ROBBERY. From start to finish you knew Augustus was getting shafted that night. He did.

I think the ref took a point away because Augustus was spinning himself.