Which victim of a scorecard robbery did you feel LEAST sorry for?

Got the idea from a thread that was posted here some time ago.

So who did you think deserved to get robbed and why was that, was it his performance or perhaps the personality of the fighter?

I wasn't sorry for Dirrell-Froch for example even though the decision was questionable

 

Lennox Lewis in the first Holyfield fight. Although lewis won, he didn't fight like a champion. He stunk out the joint.

De la Hoya against Tito too to a certain extend because of the way he just ran in the last 4 rounds.

Tarver-Johnson 1. I thought tarver won that fight, but I have always hated him and so glad Johnson got it.

Gatti-Ward 1. Gatti won that fight in terms of rounds and scoring, even though Ward scored the KD, but I was glad Ward won it because truthfully the ref should have stopped the fight in Ward's favour in the 9th.

 

These are all great examples, and Lewis-Holy I was the first example that came to my mind when I saw the title.

I'll also add Shane-DLH II - regardless of how you felt about the verdict, DLH and Arum pulling the BS they did afterward was difficult to stomach.

 

Honestly? Lewis in the first Holyfield fight.

Sure he won the fight, but he fought like such a big, smelly, cowardly pussy against a cruiserweight - that I have absolutely no sympathy at all that he got robbed.

It would be like feeling sympathy for Brandon Rios for getting robbed against Arce, after cowering in fear for most of the fight ::

 

As I remember, Hopkins in the Taylor rematch. He did the exact same thing as the first fight, doing literally shit all through the first 6 or 7 rounds and leaving all of them completely open to interpretation.

His weight problems probably played a part, but still.

 

Disagree.

He started faster in the rematch from what i can recall...and looked to win that one certainly. In the first fight though, I have to agree...he left it too late and it was his own fault.

 

I always feel sorry for a guy when he deserves to win a fight and doesn't get the decision. I don't mean a close fight that could have gone either way but a legitimate robbery. even if i rooted against the fighter in general or have money against him... if you won the fight you deserve to get the win, and it doesn't matter if you received some gifts yourself in the past.

 

agREED with your take... however, Hut_Hut's post matched the general perception of those who viewed the action on auto pilot.

Hopkins started faster than he did in the first fight, but still took too long coming out of the gate in both fights, at least for those looking for any reason to not score in his favor (I had him winning the rematch).

 

Tarver/Johnson 1 wins this one easily for me. Tarver won that fight, but I liked Glen and hated Milkdud. Also, Glen's been on the receiving end of enough robberies himself.

 

agreed

also, Oscar gave away the fight to Trinidad... to me, he still won clearly, but he should have closed FAR more exmphatically

 

Holmes against Spinks in their rematch. Holmes was a completely classless individual, & I don't doubt that in more than a quarter-century of having never ceased b!tching about that result, it would never occur to him he might just have been on the receiving end in previous fights (Williams beat him, at the very least).

 

Good call. I was glad spinks won that fight.

 

Might be to close to apply here, but Morales in the MAB rematch.