Electoral College vs Popular Vote - as it relates to boxing.

In boxing, similarly to US politics, the winner of the Electoral College (10 point must system on a round by round basis) is typically also the winner of the popular vote (performed better on a second by second basis and caused more damage).

However, every now and then the winner of boxing's Electoral College is the loser of boxing's popular vote.

This thread is inspired by the Kovalev-Ward fight.

Fans consider Kovalev as having been "robbed" because in terms of an overall fight, he looked to have caused more damage, and the rounds in which he won were stronger wins than the rounds Ward won. However in terms of a round by round it's possible that Ward justifiably won 7 rounds by single percentage point margins.

Trump vs. Clinton all over again.

So my question is this:

Which other fights can you think of where in your opinion or in terms of the actual results of the fight.....where one fighters won the popular vote (was the better man on the night) but lost the election (the decision based on a round by round 10 point must system)?

 

I'll say De La Hoya vs. Trinidad.

IMO, Oscar looked better on the night and seemed to cause more damage. The rounds Oscar won were bigger rounds than the one's Tito won (except for 10 and 11).

Rounds 3,5,6,7,8 were BIG rounds for Oscar. But, IMO...Tito narrowly won rounds 1&2...4&9 and then swept the last 3. People remember how bad Oscar was outboxing him for most of the first 8 rounds and bloodying his nose, but in between those big Oscar rounds, Tito was sneaking in a few rounds here and there and IMO deserved the decision.

Again...when you look at the fight as a whole, Oscar looked to have won.

 

Mayweather-Castillo 1.

Floyd won on the electoral college... Castillo appeared to most to have actually won the damn fight.