Worst robbery of these?

[Ugotabe Kidding]

Which one was in your opinion the worst robbery of these fights (yeah'a'now there are plenty of more an these don't necessarily include THE worst of all time). I tried to pick fights that are familiar to most and that were controversial in a bit different ways.

One thing that often makes people cry robbery are fights where one guy dominates five or six rounds and the rest of rounds are close, yet in these fights the scores can be correct if the other guy manages to capture the other rounds with narrow margins. That is why I picked Foreman-Schultz out of these fights: Schultz won "only" by about three points, but to me there was no way he won less than seven rounds, he won his rounds very clear. In Lewis-Holy, you could make a case for Lewis winning nine or even ten rounds but even there I think it is easier to see a draw

[whiskey]

Naturally the one that stand out the most is Whitaker-Chavez. I saw Schulz-Foreman years ago and definetly thought it was a robbery. However i haven't seen the fight since and never got a chance to score it.

[dymipepel]

Naturally the one that stand out the most is Whitaker-Chavez. I saw Schulz-Foreman years ago and definetly thought it was a robbery. However i haven't seen the fight since and never got a chance to score it.

Whichever of these fights was held in Germany, was the worst robbery.

[whiskey]

Whichever of these fights was held in Germany, was the worst robbery.

They all took place in Munich during Oktoberfest.

[Jake]

I have to disagree. IMO, it's a tossup between Lewis-Holy and Whitaker-Chavez. In both, the winner was absolutely clear, but only a matter of by how much. Both get greatly exaggerated - Whitaker didn't win 10 rounds to 2, like some suggest.

In both, I can see as close as 115-113 and as far as 117-111.

Foreman-Schulz - I knew a few people (besides two of the judges :lol: ) who actually believe Foreman deserved to win. I personally had Schulz winning 115-113. Not sure I can see it any greater than 1 more round, and not sure that I would've disagreed with a draw (though I clearly had Schulz winning when watching it live).

DLH-Tito is the most exaggerated robbery of all time. I'll never claim that Tito deserved to win - at best he deserved a draw (which is exactly how I had it)/ But there's no way in hell that Oscar swept the first 8-9 rounds, just like it's a myth that Tito swept the last 4. I had him taking the last 3, but clearly losing the 9th. I remember that, because at that point I had Oscar ahead 6-3.

In the end, I say Lewis-Holy I, just because there's no way in hell Holy won more than 5 rounds, with quite a few of those 5 being close. Lewis dominated most of the rounds he won, competitive in the rest (save for maybe 1 or 2). He has himself to blame for not finishing Holy when he had the chance in the 5th, and for not going the extra mile to close the deal late in the fight. But still, based on points, there's no way you can come up with Holy even deserving a draw, never mind winning.

[Hut*Hut]

Haven't seen Foreman-Shultz.

Of the other three, it'd pretty much rank them evenly - about 5 stollen points in each case, and each fight marked by the reluctance of the 'winner' to really engage the beaten fighter.

In the end I voted for De la Hoya-Tito because at least Whitiker and Lewis got draws.

[Double L]

I have to disagree. IMO, it's a tossup between Lewis-Holy and Whitaker-Chavez. In both, the winner was absolutely clear, but only a matter of by how much. Both get greatly exaggerated - Whitaker didn't win 10 rounds to 2, like some suggest.

In both, I can see as close as 115-113 and as far as 117-111.

Foreman-Schulz - I knew a few people (besides two of the judges :lol: ) who actually believe Foreman deserved to win. I personally had Schulz winning 115-113. Not sure I can see it any greater than 1 more round, and not sure that I would've disagreed with a draw (though I clearly had Schulz winning when watching it live).

DLH-Tito is the most exaggerated robbery of all time. I'll never claim that Tito deserved to win - at best he deserved a draw (which is exactly how I had it)/ But there's no way in hell that Oscar swept the first 8-9 rounds, just like it's a myth that Tito swept the last 4. I had him taking the last 3, but clearly losing the 9th. I remember that, because at that point I had Oscar ahead 6-3.

In the end, I say Lewis-Holy I, just because there's no way in hell Holy won more than 5 rounds, with quite a few of those 5 being close. Lewis dominated most of the rounds he won, competitive in the rest (save for maybe 1 or 2). He has himself to blame for not finishing Holy when he had the chance in the 5th, and for not going the extra mile to close the deal late in the fight. But still, based on points, there's no way you can come up with Holy even deserving a draw, never mind winning.

if it's a robbery, it's a robbery. and Lewis is not at fault. would it have been impressive if he'd gone for the knock-out? yes. would it have been smart? not so sure. should he have to knock a guy out to win the fight? no. was the fight close enough that he should've felt he needed a knock-out to ensure the win? no. was he robbed blind of a victory he clearly deserved? yes. did Holyfield not do shit in the fight? yes. he didn't do shit. was Holyfield scared of Lewis' power and therefore tamed and fought like a puss? Yes. have you ever heard anyone make the claim that Holyfield deserved a draw? no.

[Jake]

Haven't seen Foreman-Shultz.

Of the other three, it'd pretty much rank them evenly - about 5 stollen points in each case, and each fight marked by the reluctance of the 'winner' to really engage the beaten fighter.

In the end I voted for De la Hoya-Tito because at least Whitiker and Lewis got draws.
But Whitaker and Lewis got draws in fights where probably no less than 95% of the boxing world felt they both clealy deserved to win.

Oscar lost a majority decision in a fight where many felt he won, but probably just as many felt should've been a draw, and that neither fighter did much of anything to deserve being called "winner" that night.

[Erratic]

I don't remember how I scored Foreman-Schultz. I would probably have the most sympathy for Schultz in this situation since he lost his chance at the title and didn't get a rematch. Lewis got a rematch, Whitaker still kept his crown, and De La Hoya ran and that was a closer fight anyway.

Of the other three that I remember scoring, I would say Lewis-Holyfield definitely. I had it 117-111 Lewis. That was pretty easy to score, and a complete disgrace. Eugenia Williams actually scored round 5 for Holyfield when was on the ropes taking a beating for a short time and pretty much got dominated throughout the round. I had Whitaker up 116-112 against Chavez.

I agree with Jake that DLH-Trinidad is exaggerated. Some of the rounds before DLH started running were close. Nevertheless, I still scored it for Oscar. I had round 1 even, 2 and 3 for DLH, 4 for Tito, 5 thru 7 for DLH, 8 for Tito, 9 for DLH, and 10-12 for Tito.

Speaking of Foreman, his "loss" to Shannon Briggs was ridiculous.

[Alabama_Man]

Whitaker-Chavez to me. I saw Chavez getting popped at will and following Pea around. This was a blatant robbery.

Tito-ODH was a close fight that could've gone either way. I don't know why it's on the list. :dunno:

[slystaff]

Foreman-Schultz gave me the most negative reaction and so I voted for that.

I remember when the scores were announced, i was like WTF!??!

Foreman clearly lost that fight...I didn't give him more than 3 rounds to be perfectly honest.


Chavez-Whitaker was a robbery, no doubt...but I hated Whitaker's tactics in that fight and so i wasn't too upset.

Lewis fought Holyfield like a pussy...so i was glad he didn't get the decision...although he clearly won.

DLH-Tito was a robbery also...but a draw is arguable...and 6-5-1 to tito is BARLEY possible if you really want to GIVE in to Trinidad.

You could ARGUABLY say that Tito won the last 4 rounds, plus the 1st, 4th and drew the 5th


But for me Oscar won the fight 7 rounds to 5

[Hex-One]

Whitaker/Chavez!:blobbox:

[Rubio MHS]

Foreman-Schultz and De la Hoya-Trinidad were relatively close fights, especially the latter.

[Free Ike]

I actually didn't think Shultz/Foreman was that bad. Foreman/Briggs was far worse. Lewis/Holyfield is the one that had me the most angry. Lewis dominated that fight. Holyfield stood there like a statue. I guess Pea/Chavez was bad, but who cares they fucked that stinky, cowardly, holding, running ,stinkbag. I am still happy. Pea's fans are some of the worst. Anyone that seriously argues that Pea beat DLH should just watch figure skating. DLH made him sprint and run like a cunt for 12 rounds. Pea got a gift , trip ruled a kd and even with the corrupt referee Mills Stroke Lane he still lost.

[Ugotabe Kidding]

Foreman-Schultz and De la Hoya-Trinidad were relatively close fights, especially the latter.

Foreman-Shculz was relatively close yes but no way Foreman won it

[Rubio MHS]

Foreman-Shculz was relatively close yes but no way Foreman won itI don't know about you, but I don't scream, "robbery!" at two-round fights.

[Tam Tam]

Lewis v Holyfield.

Trinidad probably won 5 rounds v Oscar. Chavez four v Whitaker...and Foreman v Schultz? Well, I didn't think it was all that bad of a decision. Neither guy did much.

Holy won two rounds. Three at best vs Lewis and walked away with his belts.

[Ugotabe Kidding]

I don't know about you, but I don't scream, "robbery!" at two-round fights.

My point here was that even though Schulz only won it by two or three points, there is no way tht Foreman should have gotten the decision. The rounds Schulz won were not debatable and that is why it was a robbery.

[Rubio MHS]

My point here was that even though Schulz only won it by two or three points, there is no way tht Foreman should have gotten the decision. The rounds Schulz won were not debatable and that is why it was a robbery.A bad decision, maybe, but a robbery? No. That's an insult to fighters like Dave Tiberi and Pernell Whitaker , who've really been ripped off.