Most controversial decision of all-time?

Same here, Lewis is my favourite fighter ever so I couldn't really be objective.

 

Like Holmes-Norton, I just didnt see Lewis-Mercer as close as many others.

6-3-1 Lewis on my card.

 

Helenius vs Chisora.

I had Chisora, the Brits had Chisora, the Finns had Helenius, and it really would have been very very easy to give the fight to either guy.

It was on of those "what do you fancy" type-fights.....the occasional heavy bomb from Helenius, or the amateurish but regular bombardment from Chisora.

There were at least three or four rounds that I couldn't decide who to give the round to.

An insignificant fight perhaps but one where each man was convinced he had it won when in reality there was nothing in it. BOTH guys probably won it. ::

Another very similar sort of fight would be the contests between Paulie Ayala and Johnnie Tapia.

Again, either guy could get the decision there. Either guy. Impossible to tell who really turned in the better performance. No bad cuts, no knockdowns, no deductions, nothing really to go on for you to decide who had the edge.

 

Only the Brits. Its what people in America think that counts.:rock1:

 

definitely

 

::

 

The Chavez - Taylor decision has to be up there

 

It shouldnt be, but it is.

What about the Fanman fight? That was RAZOR thin. I scored for Bowe.

 

robbery

 

That would make it Razor Fat.

 

Marquez/Pacquiao III. I'm sorry but Pac didn't win that one. Most controversial of the three fights they had.

 

Topic is decisions that were controversial because the real winner is in doubt.

This means that since you think Marquez beat Pacquiao, and that he was robbed, it isn't in fact controversial in the sense that it was close.

Nice job of Steve explaining his thread. ::

 

Right :NotThink:

Haye/Valuev was pretty controversial, to a point.

 

I don't think Marquez was "robbed", just that it felt right that he should have been awarded the W.

 

It's all perspective. I know several Mexicans that thought Rameriz actually deserved the nod in his first bout with Whitaker despite it qualifying as the biggest robbery in history.

But staying more on the theme of your thread, I'd nominate Spinks-Holmes II. I guess many actually think Spinks deserved the win.

 

Marquez/Pac III has to be considered here, as many believed Marquez deserved the nod.

 

Wasn't the first one a little more contested? I thought the rematch was closer to robbery territory.

 

Including Manny.

 

I think ODH/Trinidad qualifies. I know some will try to paint it as an out and out robbery, but I thought the case could be made for Trinidad given that ODH pretty much gave up on offense halfway into the fight. Of course, we all know now that it was because he didn't like getting hit with loaded gloves. But at the time, none of us could've known this, and the fight has to be scored as if it were fair.

 

I think the second fight would qualify, too.

 

Chisora won that, and imo by a good 3-4 rounds.

 

Yeah I think I had him by 3 but when I switched the close middle rounds back to Helenius, rounds I feel could have gone either way, and gave Helenius the 1st, I had Helenius by one.

I felt at the time that Helenius by any more than 1 was unfair, and so it turned out to be.

If Chisora had won the last round though, he would have gotten a majority draw on the official cards.

 

It qualifies without question. I personally scored it pretty wide for Oscar... but enough people I love and respect had it for Trinidad.

Also, no loaded glove talk please, you motherfucker.

 

What, both of them?

 

De La Hoya clearly won.

It's nothing like, say, De La Hoyas fight with Whitaker. Theres just no way Trinidad snatched nine rounds. It was embarrassing the way he was made to look the first seven or eight rounds.

Probably the best eight rounds of De La Hoya's life, actually.

 

And then what? He ran out of money? Got drunk and fell over? Got sick in the gents and had to leave?

Don't leave us hanging. :nono:

 

Ruiz-Holyfield triogy, opinions were pretty much split down the middle on each and every fight. First one probably the least as most felt Ruiz won but a strong minority agreed with the decision. Second one, the decision isn't in debate ( ok, a little bit off topic ) but many felt holy deserved the ko win for the ''bodyshot'' ( it was low imo ). Third one was also a can of worm with many feeling Holy was robbed and a lot feeling a draw or a Ruiz win was the correct call.

 

holyfield beat that pussy ruiz 3 times. and the first fight was by KO

 

Yet it was holy who wanted to blow job Ruiz ( at 7:55 )

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/C2RS_kC6rcE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

Keep your racism to yourself, thank you.

Lennox had a broad Canadian/North American accent, represented Canada in the Olympic games and routinely celebrated his Jamaican roots after every fight. It doesn't affect my opinion of him- along with Nigel Benn (co-incidentally, another black man), Lennox was/is my favourite fighter.

MTF