Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: How does a BLATANT ROBBERY occur in boxing?
FightHype Community > OTHER HYPE > Archives
KENSOFINE
I'm not referring to ones that could go either way, depending on your style preference

(Dirrel v Froch, DLH vs Trinidad, Hagler v Leonard)

I mean instances where there could have been NO OTHER LOGICAL RESULT.

(Funeka v Guzman, Foreman v Briggs, Chavez v Whitaker)

Even in fights that are meaningless, without a superstar...there have been instances where ALL of the judges have voted for a fighter who clearly lost the match. How does this happen? How and why would THREE judges get together just to fuck up someone's carreer?

(See Emanuel Augustus for an immediate reference.)
MarzB
Joel Cassamayor vs. Jose Santa Cruz

IMO, I think they're often NOT paying attention frankly. I'm trying to think of some other recent ones.
KENSOFINE
QUOTE (MarzB @ Mar 25 2010, 04:44 PM) *
Joel Cassamayor vs. Jose Santa Cruz

IMO, I think they're often NOT paying attention frankly. I'm trying to think of some other recent ones.


Fights like Felix Sturm v Oscar DLH...was a robbery, but the agenda was apparent. There was a mega-fight waiting in the wings, and this tune-up dude was NOT gonna fuck up that kinda money. Some of the others, in recent years...I dont know.
grapevine241
de la hoya-sturm could have been a draw or a sturm victory but it was hardly a robbery, close fight IMO
D-MARV
QUOTE (MarzB @ Mar 25 2010, 04:44 PM) *
Joel Cassamayor vs. Jose Santa Cruz

IMO, I think they're often NOT paying attention frankly. I'm trying to think of some other recent ones.

That scoring was TERRIBLE... If I remember correctly, I gave Santa Cruz 10 rounds!
Fitz
Funny you mention that. I am in an extreme minority that didn't have a problem with Guzman-Funeka. I thought Guzman did well early, though the robbery always seems so much more extreme when a fighter loses his rounds in much more clear fashion and is getting hurt. Funeka won his rounds clearly, but I thought Guzman edged a lot of the close ones and the cut played a factor in the fight (which has no effect on how someone should score a fight), but Guzman is winning this rematch.
grapevine241
yeah i didn't feel like the draw in guzman-funeka was too bad, i think a lot of people scored the blood in that fight. i like guzman in the rematch too, funeka hasnt shown me the ability to adjust plus guzman shouldnt have any rust.
D-MARV
I thought Funeka-Guzman was a competitive but clear win for Funeka. He busted Guzman up pretty good but I felt that Guzman showed some heart. Wasn't the worst decision I've seen.
Fitz
QUOTE (grapevine241 @ Mar 26 2010, 12:59 PM) *
yeah i didn't feel like the draw in guzman-funeka was too bad, i think a lot of people scored the blood in that fight. i like guzman in the rematch too, funeka hasnt shown me the ability to adjust plus guzman shouldnt have any rust.


That's a common mistake. Sometimes people forget that you go by rounds, and not damage.

You have a 12 round fight, 6 rounds a guy edges in close rounds, the last 6 rounds, the guy wins dominantly, hurts him and busts him open, rocks him a few times. In the end when they do the scoring, it is still a draw and 6-6. I wouldn't have a problem if Funeka got the decision, I just didn't think it was a blatant robbery.
Can't remember the scorecards, they may have been garbage, but the end result was ok for me.
KENSOFINE
Facebook convo with Emanuel Augustus, one of my favorite fighters to watch:


9:12pmKensofine
sup champ

9:13pmEmanuel
you got it. what's going on with you?

9:13pmKensofine
you are the most entertaining fighter in history, dawg

real talk

9:13pmEmanuel
thanks.

9:13pmKensofine
I set a thread on fighthype talking about how much you been robbed in the ring

lol

aint right

mad respect to ya

(I gave him the link. Hopefully he will view it and maybe post in the near future. Fingers crossed)
Mean Mister Mustard
I think a lot of it is corruption but also sheer incompetence. I relate this to the Agustus-Burton fight in which, after the robbery, Teddy Atlas spoke to one of the members of the comission and found out, on the air, that the guy didn't know the difference between a majority decision and a split decision. You have to remember that most of the people emplyed by the comission don't know squat about boxing, this is just a job for them, they don't really care about boxing. Most of them don't, not all of them.

To your initial question, I too wonder how this is permitted but as you can see with Fitz, boxing is very subjective so before anything is done one has to establish that the decision was indeed a ;robbery' and not just a close fight. That alone is very difficult sometimes.
Jack 1000
I think what happens in the thirty to forty years that I have studied boxing is the common perception of certain variables that you can take into a fight in most instances. Here are some of them:

1.) Judges Hate Journeymen: That happens I would say over 60% of the time. They fighter with the mediocre record almost has to beat the living shit out of the promoter's guy about 9 rounds to 3 in unofficial eyes, just to get a draw on the cards. I have seen this even with very experienced judges at the helm. They aren't going to let some losing SOB. ("And they actually THINK SOB" get away with the bum winning.

2.) Judges know the networks like to pom-pom superstars and promoters want the superstars to be pom-pomed:
Again, a loss just means too much of an economic downturn for a top 34-0 guy to lose to a 18-10, guy. It's just not acceptable. How many times in boxing DOES an 18-10 record guy win a decision against a 34-0 guy? Extremely rare.

3.) There are little perks for going with a house fighter and consequences if you go against him:

British ref and judge Mickey Vann once said he worked a fight in Japan and before the fight received a camera. There have even been rumors of judges and refs accepting cash and sometimes bigger bribes for favoring the home town fighter. There were allegations that former New York Ref Harold Valan was seen having dinner with Jimmy Ellis' people before his fight with Floyd Patterson. Valan was the only voting official for that fight in Europe at the time, and Patterson on the rounds system in the eyes of many seemed to win a close fight, but the ref gave it to Ellis by the margin that most had it for Patterson.

Octavio Meyran remember him who worked Douglas-Tyson admitted that he gave a long count against Tyson in that fight, (actually he did the same against Douglas.) What people don't know is that Tyson bitched about it to Don King after the fight. (You even see Don in the press section seemingly upset after the memorable 8th round.) And while the count WAS long, King went to the WBC WBA and IBF and the WBC and WBA initially did not call Douglas champion because of Tyson's and King's protest. Only the IBF and the Japanese Boxinf Commission dismissed the protest outright. (They still sanctioned the fight, but to this day are not represented by the Japanese Boxing Commission.) The IBF is working to get represented in Japan.

Anyway, 36 hours later everyone dropped the protest, called Douglas a champion and agreed that Douglas-Tyson II would happen. Holyfield as the #1 contender in all federations threatened to sue if he did not get first crack at Douglas. Even the judges two of them had cards that showed that Tyosn was still in the fight. One judge had it even at 86-86, one judge had it 87-86-Tyson! and the third had Douglas up 88-83.

Watching that fight, giving Tyson every benefit of the doubt I always have Douglas up 5-3-1 (an even round 4) I always give Tyson rounds 7-9. But I always refuse to give Tyson a 10-8 round in the 8th round where he knocks Douglas down, because before the knockdown, Douglas was beating Tyson all over the ring in that round. The best you could do in that round is 10-9 for Tyson. That 10-8 round made the fight closer than it should have been.

But I always use this fight to show the great lengths that officials will go to protect a name fighter against a journeymen. In this case a 50-1 underdog! Oh and as for Octavio Mayran who was picked by the WBC as the main governing body for the fight. Although Jose Sulaiman called him "a man of great integrity who made a mistake," for whatever reason, Octavio Meyran never worked another title fight after Douglas-Tyson.

Stan Christoudoulou, one of my most respected international refs and judges, told a story about how someone tried to bribe him before a fight. He brought it to the authorities, the promoter was arrested, convicted, and his license was revoked.

Sometimes having neutral judges helps and the commissions and ruling bodies have inspectors and investigators to help with any problems of corruption or incompetence. Actually, considering the hundreds to thousands of fights over the years that take place, I have learned that the level of sheer HORRIBLE decisions has been thankfully small. But I have seen those numbers inflated when journeymen are fighting. They are the fighters who just cannot seem to get a break.

Jack
Lil-lightsout
QUOTE (Mean Mister Mustard @ Mar 25 2010, 11:29 PM) *
I think a lot of it is corruption but also sheer incompetence. I relate this to the Agustus-Burton fight in which, after the robbery, Teddy Atlas spoke to one of the members of the comission and found out, on the air, that the guy didn't know the difference between a majority decision and a split decision. You have to remember that most of the people emplyed by the comission don't know squat about boxing, this is just a job for them, they don't really care about boxing. Most of them don't, not all of them.

To your initial question, I too wonder how this is permitted but as you can see with Fitz, boxing is very subjective so before anything is done one has to establish that the decision was indeed a ;robbery' and not just a close fight. That alone is very difficult sometimes.


The Augustus-Burton fight, there first one, was a straight up robbery. Not incompetence in that fight,though there is alot of that in other fights. The fight was in Burton's hometown and the fight was not even close. Those judges clearly(2 of them) already had the winner picked beforehand. And the problem is nothing fucking happens! The same shit has been going on as long as I have been an avid fan, and until severe action is taken against these scumbag crooks, it will continue. It's like the man who can constantly cheats on his wife and gets away with it because the wife allows it. Until the wife truly takes care of the problem,the man will continue to cheat.

Some of these old farts judging fights makes me wonder sometimes how competent they actually are. It is obvious the last couple of years how Howard Lederman has lost his skills to judge.
Lil-lightsout
QUOTE (Jack 1000 @ Mar 25 2010, 11:45 PM) *
I think what happens in the thirty to forty years that I have studied boxing is the common perception of certain variables that you can take into a fight in most instances. Here are some of them:

1.) Judges Hate Journeymen: That happens I would say over 60% of the time. They fighter with the mediocre record almost has to beat the living shit out of the promoter's guy about 9 rounds to 3 in unofficial eyes, just to get a draw on the cards. I have seen this even with very experienced judges at the helm. They aren't going to let some losing SOB. ("And they actually THINK SOB" get away with the bum winning.

2.) Judges know the networks like to pom-pom superstars and promoters want the superstars to be pom-pomed:
Again, a loss just means too much of an economic downturn for a top 34-0 guy to lose to a 18-10, guy. It's just not acceptable. How many times in boxing DOES an 18-10 record guy win a decision against a 34-0 guy? Extremely rare.

3.) There are little perks for going with a house fighter and consequences if you go against him:


Jack


Agree.

I remember watching this one fight one ESPN about 5-10 years ago. The undefeated fighter was fighting a tough journeyman, do not remember either of there names. But Teddy was so on the undefeated fighters jock for all the rounds, it went about 5 or 6 rounds. The journeyman was winning all the exchanges and was getting the better of the undefeated guy and you could see he was wearing him down. But Teddy still kept talking about the house fighter, and hardly mentioning the journeyman, it was sickening. The journeyman went on to stop the touted undefeated fighter, and Teddy played it off and acted as if it was luck. It was shocking to see even Teddy on some ones nuts even though they did not deserve it.
KENSOFINE
QUOTE (Lil-lightsout @ Mar 25 2010, 11:57 PM) *
Agree.

The journeyman went on to stop the touted undefeated fighter, and Teddy played it off and acted as if it was luck. It was shocking to see even Teddy on some ones nuts even though they did not deserve it.


I LITERALLY HATE the term "LUCKY" in boxing, as in lucky fighter or lucky punch. A boxer's goal is to throw punches. If I do EXACTLY what I set out to do, and you werent quick, smart, or elusive enough not to fall victim to my plan, even if that instance is only momentary...how is it luck on MY part? "Rahman caught Lewis with a lucky punch". Bullshit. He threw a punch with the intention of hurting another boxer, and he did. Simple as that.
MarzB
QUOTE (KENSOFINE @ Mar 26 2010, 10:00 AM) *
I LITERALLY HATE the term "LUCKY" in boxing, as in lucky fighter or lucky punch. A boxer's goal is to throw punches. If I do EXACTLY what I set out to do, and you werent quick, smart, or elusive enough not to fall victim to my plan, even if that instance is only momentary...how is it luck on MY part? "Rahman caught Lewis with a lucky punch". Bullshit. He threw a punch with the intention of hurting another boxer, and he did. Simple as that.


Thank you and I agree with your post.
Warlord
QUOTE (KENSOFINE @ Mar 26 2010, 11:00 AM) *
I LITERALLY HATE the term "LUCKY" in boxing, as in lucky fighter or lucky punch. A boxer's goal is to throw punches. If I do EXACTLY what I set out to do, and you werent quick, smart, or elusive enough not to fall victim to my plan, even if that instance is only momentary...how is it luck on MY part? "Rahman caught Lewis with a lucky punch". Bullshit. He threw a punch with the intention of hurting another boxer, and he did. Simple as that.

Playing Devil's advocate here, but what if a fighter had his eyes closed when he threw a punch? Is that luck, or like, super fucking skilled?
KENSOFINE
QUOTE (Warlord @ Mar 27 2010, 06:55 AM) *
Playing Devil's advocate here, but what if a fighter had his eyes closed when he threw a punch? Is that luck, or like, super fucking skilled?


Your job as an opponent is to prevent me from being successful. If my blind punch lands, that has more to do with YOUR negligence, than anything.
1zz
DLH Mosley II
Jack 1000
QUOTE (1zz @ Mar 27 2010, 09:10 AM) *
DLH Mosley II


I thought that was an incorrect call but not a robbery. Just about everyone at home had it for Oscar 116-112 to 115-113. I had it for Oscar 115-113. Most at ringside had it 115-113 Shane to a 114-114 draw. When you see that type of diversion in scoring from people and officials, it should not be considered a robbery. All three judges carded 115-113 for Mosley, BUT they each disagreed in rounds concerning how they got there. It was that type of fight.

I thought Delahoya's win over Sturm was worse. And actually, the judges, with the exception of one who gave an obviously won 8th round ( I think it was) by Sturm to Oscar, they were pretty much in synch with the rest of us until the 12th round. Everyone thought Sturm took the last round clearly for a 116-112 to 115-113 win. All three judges gave the 12th round to Delahoya seemingly to keep the Hopkins fight intact. If they would have went for Sturm by giving him the last round, Sturm would have won and the verdict would have been fair.

Jack
The Ollie Reed Fan Club
Having just re-watched Barerra-Morales One I had forgotten just how much of a robbery that one was. Yes the fight was super competitive and Morales definately had his moments in that fight, but Barerra was in total control of that fight. It was a bad bad fucking decision.
SmartyBeardo
BaDump.

Business, pure and stanky--like a 40 plus prostitute's twat at 4 am.
mexi-cutioner
QUOTE (SmartyBeardo @ Apr 3 2010, 01:05 PM) *
BaDump.

Business, pure and stanky--like a 40 plus prostitute's twat at 4 am.

i wouldn't use the word 'pure' to refer to that twat...
Lil-lightsout
QUOTE (The Ollie Reed Fan Club @ Mar 27 2010, 07:40 PM) *
Having just re-watched Barerra-Morales One I had forgotten just how much of a robbery that one was. Yes the fight was super competitive and Morales definately had his moments in that fight, but Barerra was in total control of that fight. It was a bad bad fucking decision.


Oh yeah Marco got jobbed in that fight. Great fight, but the wrong guy won.
Method
That stoppage in the Litzau/Juarez fight was GARBAGE.

Since WHEN does a cut on your CHEEK BONE dictate a fight being stopped? Blood doesn't trickle UPWARDS into your eye. It was a joke. Just as Juarez starts coming on, they decide to call the fight because of an unobtrusive cut...coincidentally as soon as the ref lets the corner know it was caused by a butt.
Jack 1000
QUOTE (Lil-lightsout @ Apr 5 2010, 02:17 AM) *
Oh yeah Marco got jobbed in that fight. Great fight, but the wrong guy won.


I actually had Morales-Barrera I as a draw because I did not count the 12th round as a 10-8 round. That KD was clearly a slip. That fight was anywhere from a draw to no more than a one-point win for either fighter. It was that close and that great a war.

So, call the 12th round 10-8 and Barrera wins by a point. But no way should it have been 115-112 Morales on Dalby Shirley's card or just as bad 117-111 I think it was on Harold Lederman's card.

I also am in the minority that agree with the judges on the third fight as a narrow 115-113 win for Barrera.

Jack
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2014 Invision Power Services, Inc.