challengers not getting decisions

squiggy · Post by **squiggy** » 04 Feb 2008, 03:46

What do you think of the old saw that a challenger must take a champion's title decisively?
I think it has led to some bullshit decisions, such as Ali over Young. I scored that fight 143-142 Young, not realizing that they hadn't used a 10 point must system. Anyway, 7 rounds for Young, 6 for Ali, and I pussed out and called rounds 4 and 10 even. I know that's close, but what really got me was it was a unanimous decision for Ali--at least one of three judges should have given it to Young.
Judges ought to just score each round honestly. Doesn't matter if he's a great champion. If he spends the first two rounds doing nothing, he's down 20-18. If he comes up a point short in the end, take his belt away.

granberry · Post by **granberry** » 04 Feb 2008, 06:04

squiggy wrote:What do you think of the old saw that a challenger must take a champion's title decisively?
I think it has led to some bullshit decisions, such as Ali over Young. I scored that fight 143-142 Young, not realizing that they hadn't used a 10 point must system. Anyway, 7 rounds for Young, 6 for Ali, and I pussed out and called rounds 4 and 10 even. I know that's close, but what really got me was it was a unanimous decision for Ali--at least one of three judges should have given it to Young.
Judges ought to just score each round honestly. Doesn't matter if he's a great champion. If he spends the first two rounds doing nothing, he's down 20-18. If he comes up a point short in the end, take his belt away.

Did you know the Don King stooge referee gave Ali the first ten rounds and gave Young only 3 rounds out of 15?

Another bad one was Eddie Cotton-Jose Torres.

Cotton was ROBBED.

Goodnight, Irene · Post by **Goodnight, Irene** » 04 Feb 2008, 06:47

squiggy wrote:What do you think of the old saw that a challenger must take a champion's title decisively?
I think it has led to some bullshit decisions, such as Ali over Young. I scored that fight 143-142 Young, not realizing that they hadn't used a 10 point must system. Anyway, 7 rounds for Young, 6 for Ali, and I pussed out and called rounds 4 and 10 even. I know that's close, but what really got me was it was a unanimous decision for Ali--at least one of three judges should have given it to Young.
Judges ought to just score each round honestly. Doesn't matter if he's a great champion. If he spends the first two rounds doing nothing, he's down 20-18. If he comes up a point short in the end, take his belt away.

Squiggy, can I call you Rapid?

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 04 Feb 2008, 10:01

Squiggy,
I agree that it shouldn't matter who is the champion when a judge scores a fight. Unfortunately, this has often been the case in boxing although not as much in the last several years.

As for Young-Ali, If you scored the fight for Young by only a one round margin (with two rounds even), how can you possibly call the decision BS?

squiggy · Post by **squiggy** » 04 Feb 2008, 11:32

"As for Young-Ali, If you scored the fight for Young by only a one round margin (with two rounds even), how can you possibly call the decision BS?"

Because it was unanimous.

I was also irritated (I had just watched that fight before my post last night) that Howard Cosell and Ken Norton would not just come out and say that Young should've been ahead on points, and that Ali said in the ring afterward that he knew he would get the decision (probably already used to getting bonus points for being Ali).

squiggy · Post by **squiggy** » 04 Feb 2008, 12:33

"Squiggy, can I call you Rapid?"

Since I don't get the reference, I suppose you can.

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 04 Feb 2008, 13:03

Because it wasn't unanimous?
A fight can be very close and still be unanimous.
It's not surprising that Cosell and Norton didn't say that Young should have won. You shouldn't be surprised that other people aren't outraged by a decision in a fight which you yourself thought one guy won by only one point.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 04 Feb 2008, 13:29

Ambling Alp wrote:Because it wasn't unanimous?
A fight can be very close and still be unanimous.
It's not surprising that Cosell and Norton didn't say that Young should have won. You shouldn't be surprised that other people aren't outraged by a decision in a fight which you yourself thought one guy won by only one point.

A voice of reason.....refreshing. I just viewed the fight again for the upteenth time. It was close. Too close to be outraged by a close outcome either way. However the scoring was obnoxious. (The outside of the ropes stuff may have backfired on Young.) Young also appeared to be bothered by some of the incoming more so than his opponent. Slickly fought though and definately frustrating for Ali. But not even close to the "Great Train Robbery". (Other than the actual scoring which could be considered criminal I suppose.)

I would agree with granberry on the point that Ali certainly seemed to have "insurance" on this one.

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 04 Feb 2008, 13:38

BoxBuzz wrote:
Ambling Alp wrote:Because it wasn't unanimous?
A fight can be very close and still be unanimous.
It's not surprising that Cosell and Norton didn't say that Young should have won. You shouldn't be surprised that other people aren't outraged by a decision in a fight which you yourself thought one guy won by only one point.
A voice of reason.....refreshing. I just viewed the fight again for the upteenth time. It was close. Too close to be outraged by a close outcome either way. However the scoring was obnoxious. (The outside of the ropes stuff may have backfired on Young.) Young also appeared to be bothered by some of the incoming more so than his opponent. Slickly fought though and definately frustrating for Ali. But not even close to the "Great Train Robbery". (Other than the actual scoring which could be considered criminal I suppose.)

I would agree with granberry on the point that Ali certainly seemed to have "insurance" on this one.

I believe a couple of times the ref actually started giving Young the count when he ducked under the ropes. I don't think it was clear whether those were actually being counted as KDs, but if they were that would certainly swing the bout in Ali's favor.

granberry · Post by **granberry** » 04 Feb 2008, 14:07

Members of the Religion of Ali hate Jimmy Young with a passion.

In fifteen rounds, their Ali, touted as "the greatest of all time"

could not land a single right hand, a single left jab, a single left slap.

Once he found he COULD NOT hit Young with head punches, Ali never switched to a body attack, as any competent fighter would.

WHY?

Because he was a flawed, limited fighter who did not know how to throw a body punch.

The fight also demonstrated that Ali had no defense against a body attack, since he used both hands trying to twist of his opponent's head off in close, leaving his midsection completely undefended.

The body punches alone (20-25 a round) that Young landed in every round won him those rounds by a lopsided margin.

Ali had no defense against Young's left jab. He was caught continually with it, and never adjusted. He had no way to defend against it.

Young, whose hands were three times as fast as Ali's, landed right hand leads repeatedly.

NO WONDER the Ali shills HATE Jimmy Young.

Young exposed the emperor's new clothes-- the fact that their beloved Ali was worse than mediocre as a boxer.

Once he was losing, Ali tried to to hit Young across the face with his forearm or elbow at the end of every clinch, a blatant foul,

which the stooge Don King referee never warned Ali for, even once.

That fight exposed Ali as the mediocrity he was, for FIFTEEN rounds.

Ali refused to fight Young again, even though after embarrassing Ali so badly

Young then beat Ron Lyle by a lopsided decision

and then beat Foreman, knocking Foreman down in the last round.

But "greatest of all time" Ali did not dare to get into the ring again with Young.

You have good reason for your hate for Young, Ali shills.

Ali's brother yelled at Ali over and over from Ali's corner, "You're losing Ali. You're losing."

Angelo Dundee said after the fight, "He never looked so bad."

Even clueless Howard Cosell said repeatedly, "I've never seen Ali miss like this."

Lester Bromberg, longtime RING writer and NY paper boxing writer, scored the fight 11 rounds to 4 for Jimmy Young. Bromberg called the officials saving of Ali's title "a travesty of a decision."

The only solution for members of The Religion of Ali is to buy EVERY tape in existence of this fight and burn the tapes.

And then jump up and down on the plastic containers.

Go to it, Ali shills.

.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 04 Feb 2008, 14:35

granberry wrote:Members of the Religion of Ali hate Jimmy Young with a passion.

In fifteen rounds, their Ali, touted as "the greatest of all time"

could not land a single right hand, a single left jab, a single left slap.

.

I just watched the fight gran.....these words are simply not true. Were you using extreme exaggeration here to make a point? If so...rephrase toward reality and get into a conversation that is "earth based".

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 04 Feb 2008, 14:39

BoxBuzz wrote:
granberry wrote:Members of the Religion of Ali hate Jimmy Young with a passion.

In fifteen rounds, their Ali, touted as "the greatest of all time"

could not land a single right hand, a single left jab, a single left slap.

.

I just watched the fight gran.....these words are simply not true. Were you using extreme exaggeration here to make a point? If so...rephrase toward reality and get into a conversation that is "earth based".

I second that.

In a twist of irony, I think Ken Norton, who granberry also hates, got a MUCH worse hand in losing to Ali in their rubber match than Young did vs Ali.

granberry · Post by **granberry** » 04 Feb 2008, 14:47

BoxBuzz wrote:
granberry wrote:Members of the Religion of Ali hate Jimmy Young with a passion.

In fifteen rounds, their Ali, touted as "the greatest of all time"

could not land a single right hand, a single left jab, a single left slap.

.

I just watched the fight gran.....these words are simply not true. Were you using extreme exaggeration here to make a point? If so...rephrase toward reality and get into a conversation that is "earth based".

'Earth-based,' to a heavily indoctrinated member of The Religion of Ali like buzz,

means genuflecting at the Shrine of Ali.

Ali missed right hands by a foot to 2 feet as the fight went on.

He could not land a left jab to save his life. It was always short.

In 15 rounds Ali never figured out what Young was doing that caused him to miss so badly.

The 9th round is hilarious as Young makes a total ass out of a desperate Ali.

I have shown that repeatdly to Ali worshippers over the years.

They always stumble out the door and NEVER come near me again.

The fairy tale world of the clueless Ali worshipper is easy to puncture.

DaveV17 · Post by **DaveV17** » 04 Feb 2008, 15:09

Woller · Post by **Woller** » 04 Feb 2008, 15:42

I just had a look at Jose Torres v Eddie Cotton, and like the three judges I scored it for Torres. The commentator did not have one of his best days. At one point he is talking about how great Cotton is doing, and I sit and watch Torres giving Cotton a beating at that time. Loe Louis is asked his opinion and gives the fight to Torres by one round (The last)

Woller

granberry · Post by **granberry** » 04 Feb 2008, 15:50

Woller wrote:I just had a look at Jose Torres v Eddie Cotton, and like the three judges I scored it for Torres. The commentator did not have one of his best days. At one point he is talking about how great Cotton is doing, and I sit and watch Torres giving Cotton a beating at that time. Loe Louis is asked his opinion and gives the fight to Torres by one round (The last)

Woller

Other than the Jimmy Young-Ali travesty,

the ass whipping Eddie Cotton gave Jose Torres was the worst decision I have ever seen.

Cotton was breaking Torres in half with body punches.

And Torres (never anything but an overweight middleweight) had the reputation as a body puncher.

WHERE did Torres disappear to as soon as Bob Foster came along ?

Collins2000 · Post by **Collins2000** » 04 Feb 2008, 15:58

DaveV17 wrote:I remember watching Ali - Young with a group of people, and everyone in the room thought Ali was losing BIG. I thought Ali was losing too, but I knew the judges would give it to Ali. I bet a friend that Ali would win. Eveyone thought I was crazy. Of course I won. My Friend learned from this one and later when I tried the same thing while watching Ali - Shavers, he wouldn't take the bait.

I knew how boxing worked and I knew that the politics of boxing would come through for Ali. I had seen Norton robbed previously in his second fight with Ali. The media loved Ali and the crooks in boxing loved the way he attracted the people to boxing who couldn't tell a hook from a jab. Today, many of those people are boxing "historians."

Dave, feel free to give us some of your great predictions for any upcoming bouts.

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 04 Feb 2008, 16:01

DaveV17 wrote:I remember watching Ali - Young with a group of people, and everyone in the room thought Ali was losing BIG. I thought Ali was losing too, but I knew the judges would give it to Ali. I bet a friend that Ali would win. Eveyone thought I was crazy. Of course I won. My Friend learned from this one and later when I tried the same thing while watching Ali - Shavers, he wouldn't take the bait.

I knew how boxing worked and I knew that the politics of boxing would come through for Ali. I had seen Norton robbed previously in his second fight with Ali. The media loved Ali and the crooks in boxing loved the way he attracted the people to boxing who couldn't tell a hook from a jab. Today, many of those people are boxing "historians."

No wonder Dave and GB have been backslapping each other so much . .

Previously, I got into a big debate with I Feel Fine, as I scored Ali-Norton II for Norton by a point, and he thought that was wrong. It could have gone EITHER way though. To say Norton got robbed in the rematch is just plain wrong. I also think the Frazier rematch was a draw.

Rewatched Shavers-Ali last week . . .also a VERY close fight, had it dead even after 14. Depends on how one scores the 15th. To Shavers, for his strong 2 minutes . . or to the Champion, for having Shavers near a KO in the final 20 seconds? I feel valid arguments can be made both ways . . that wasn't a robbery either.

One CLEAR robbery in favor of Ali during his career, and that's Norton III. I also scored Young-Ali in favor of Young by several points. HOWEVER, if you take points away from Young for ducking through the ropes (which is ILLEGAL and a BULLSHIT tactic frankly) then I can see perhaps Ali winning by a point.

As the fight was close and Ali at 230 and 35 years old looked as bad as he ever would until the Spinks fight, I have no doubt a prime Ali beats Young decisively.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 04 Feb 2008, 16:04

granberry wrote:
BoxBuzz wrote:
granberry wrote:Members of the Religion of Ali hate Jimmy Young with a passion.

In fifteen rounds, their Ali, touted as "the greatest of all time"

could not land a single right hand, a single left jab, a single left slap.

.

I just watched the fight gran.....these words are simply not true. Were you using extreme exaggeration here to make a point? If so...rephrase toward reality and get into a conversation that is "earth based".
'Earth-based,' to a heavily indoctrinated member of The Religion of Ali like buzz,

means genuflecting at the Shrine of Ali.

Ali missed right hands by a foot to 2 feet as the fight went on.

He could not land a left jab to save his life. It was always short.

In 15 rounds Ali never figured out what Young was doing that caused him to miss so badly.

The 9th round is hilarious as Young makes a total ass out of a desperate Ali.

I have shown that repeatdly to Ali worshippers over the years.

They always stumble out the door and NEVER come near me again.

The fairy tale world of the clueless Ali worshipper is easy to puncture.

Yes I'm respectfully requesting you get "earth based"

In your world Futch stopped Frazier from coming out for the 15th and possibly killing Ali. You've gone on record to say those words.

Your case may not be hopeless but your pulse is definately weak.

DaveV17 · Post by **DaveV17** » 04 Feb 2008, 16:57

John Galt · Post by **John Galt** » 04 Feb 2008, 17:05

Ali fought by different rules.Hard to beat a man whose 3 point line is 8 feet from the basket. Ali had all the breaks, that has to be factored into any assessment of Ali.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 04 Feb 2008, 17:16

DaveV17 wrote:It all comes down to how one scores a fight. If one gives points for throwing one or two pitter pat arm punches, grabbing his opponent behind the head and holding until the ref can separate them, Ali did that.

From Chuvalo 1 through Spinks 2 that is how Ali fought "live" opponents. IMO, the referee and the judges were an important part of the plan. If Ali had been penalized for holding or if the judges scored his fights the same way they scored other fights, Ali would have lost a lot of decisions.

Well I guess that's better than calling anyone who calls it for a certain fighter a "fix" or "corrupt". I suppose your leaning toward "incompetent" but maybe I'm stretching that. I can at least relate to this statement.

If your saying that all judges should be highly knowldegable and purely objective...I agree. But they don't make many of us in that mold. And I sure hope no one is going to make the assertion that our contributor known as granberry fits the "purely objective" criteria. If so just shoot me now because I'm through the damn looking glass...and a white rabbit is sure to show up any moment.

HomicideHenry · Post by **HomicideHenry** » 04 Feb 2008, 17:18

Floyd Patterson losing against Jimmy Ellis for the WBA title; was total highway robbery, and it would have made Patterson the first man to have won the title three times, not Muhammad Ali. The scores were 9-6 for Ellis.

Before the bout Patterson was went 0-1-1 against Jerry Quarry, in a title elimination tournament (Ali was exiled and a new champion needed to be determined) that had Ellis-Martin, Bonavena-Mildenberger, and Spencer-Terrell. Since Quarry was injured following his victory over Patterson in a match against Spencer, Patterson was thrown in against Ellis.

Another match in which the challenger didnt get the decision was Joe Louis in his first match with Jersey Joe Walcott. While it was a robbery, at least Louis was man enough to admit that he didn't do enough to win the match and gave Walcott a second shot at him [thats a class act if there ever was].

squiggy · Post by **squiggy** » 04 Feb 2008, 17:25

I agree with the point made about Young ducking through the ropes. Not something to be proud of. I only recall once when the referee started counting. He counted to two or three, then the round ended and the counting was kind of quietly dropped. That was a round that I'd otherwise been giving to Young, and I decided to score it 10-9 Ali and not 10-8, since it wasn't a clear knockdown.

I had Young up three points after 11 rounds, putting Ali in dire straits. And Cosell asks Norton if he thinks Young has an advantage, and he says "No, because Ali is a superior fighter." You could take that to mean "I'm sure Ali will come back and win these last rounds" or "No way in hell would the judges give the win to Young anyway." Perhaps both.

The judges who had it 72-65 and 71-64 Ali were just way off. It's as if their minds were made up before the fight began. That's what I'm talking about, Ambling Alp.

squiggy · Post by **squiggy** » 04 Feb 2008, 17:29

But I didn't mean to start a thread just about Ali-Young (or Cotton-Torres, which I actually haven't seen). It seems like the very existence of the notion that a champion must be beaten soundly exposes the fact that championship fights are not going to be scored fairly. Otherwise, why even suggest that there's a subjective aspect to the scoring?

If each round were looked at objectively, then seven rounds in which the champion cruises, fights defensively, feels his man out, bides his time, etc., while the challenger pursues and lands a few more punches--even if they're of no real consequence--I believe that kind of round should go to the aggressor. And that would beat a total of five rounds in which the champion puts his man on the ropes, hammers him with flurries and outpunches him by 40 punches a round. (Unless he knocks him down and earns a 10-8.)

challengers not getting decisions

challengers not getting decisions

Re: challengers not getting decisions

Re: challengers not getting decisions