Are bad decisions so routine - everyone just accepts them!!

First topic message reminder :

Seems today you can be beaten in 12 rounds of a fight..take the decision and after a minor furore everyone just accepts it....

It's fraud and it's got so out of hand it's like a Boxing martial law.....Sure we had some bad decisions back in the day but nothing as outlandish as happens now....(Ramirez-Whittaker was scandalous back in 88..now it's the norm)

It's very sad but it's like war when the first soldier gets killed it's a shock... after the 300th you become immune to it...

Don't know what the solution is but it's got out of hand... as it has with all these stupid titles..

Talking about livelihoods and earning potential...It should be serious when it's obvious.....

but hey whatever.....

88Chris05 wrote:OneTwo, Fists, I believe the scores for Douglas-Tyson were level going in to that tenth round. One judge - quite rightly - had Douglas a good four or five points up by then if my memory serves me correctly, whereas one somehow had it even, and the other laughably having Tyson in front by a point or two (again, that's if my memory is serving me correctly).

We'll never know for sure whether or not Douglas would have been shafted had it gone the full twelve (Tyson would have needed those last two rounds and a knockout just to make the scores competitive in my mind) as he made it an irrelevance in round ten, but the fact that two judges could be so incompetent as to have Tyson level / ahead does make you wonder if the knives were out that night in Tokyo.

c'mon Chris there is no way Douglas wins that fight on the cards. A big money making fight in Tokyo which was just a tune up for Holy v Tyson in America with Tyson at the summit of his popularity yep Douglas would have been shafted and I would not have shed a tear for he turned out to be a terrible champion.

oxring wrote:

azania wrote:

oxring wrote:

joeyjojo618 wrote:

AlexHuckerby wrote:Jesus Oxy, you get to watch boxing with your girlfriend? Lucky man, lucky man.

He blows her up before every fight .

You're a cruel soul joey.

I decided to start my girlfriend on boxing early on in the relationship - and weaned her with good fights - ie Cotto/Margarito 1, fight of the century, brawl in montreal, a tyson highlight reel or 2 - and avoided the likes of Skelton/Sprott.

She now seems to have more knowledge than Azania - she was enjoying a Jack Johnson highlight reel the other day and commenting on his excellent fundamentals. She also doesn't believe that Sibson beats Greb or Ketchel.

I was hoping you'd caught that

See. I do read posts. But dont push it though

ONETWOFOREVER wrote: yep Douglas would have been shafted and I would not have shed a tear for he turned out to be a terrible champion.

Ridiculous comment, Douglas beat Tyson by a country mile and nobody on the night had any idea what kind of champ he would be so cannot be a consideration. He turned in a genuinely superb performance on the night and deserved the result and acclaim that should have bought him. Had he been denied this on the cards it would have been truly shameful.

rowley wrote:

ONETWOFOREVER wrote: yep Douglas would have been shafted and I would not have shed a tear for he turned out to be a terrible champion.

Ridiculous comment, Douglas beat Tyson by a country mile and nobody on the night had any idea what kind of champ he would be so cannot be a consideration. He turned in a genuinely superb performance on the night and deserved the result and acclaim that should have bought him. Had he been denied this on the cards it would have been truly shameful.

Oh yeah a country mile even though Tyson had him down early, yeah he won that fight by a country mile yeah well done rowely cheers.

You beat me to it, Jeff, and as you say the 'well, he turned out to be a rubbish champion anyway' comment is the daft point to end all daft points, unless OneTwo had his crystal ball by his side as he watched that fight of course.

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:

rowley wrote:

ONETWOFOREVER wrote: yep Douglas would have been shafted and I would not have shed a tear for he turned out to be a terrible champion.

Ridiculous comment, Douglas beat Tyson by a country mile and nobody on the night had any idea what kind of champ he would be so cannot be a consideration. He turned in a genuinely superb performance on the night and deserved the result and acclaim that should have bought him. Had he been denied this on the cards it would have been truly shameful.

Oh yeah a country mile even though Tyson had him down early, yeah he won that fight by a country mile yeah well done rowely cheers.

He did!?!

Douglas whipped ten shades out of Tyson.

Duran was down early in DeJesus 2 - remind me of what happened in that fight? Duran had deJesus fighting on instinct alone in the later rounds as he systematically broke him down.

So he had him down early, well done he won one round. I know you're a Tyson fan onetwo and fair enough but lets not be silly about this anyone and everyone who has watched the Douglas fight knows Buster deserved to be well ahead on the cards at the time it was finished. Have watched the fight countless times and have always seen it like that, and have not really heard too many folk who disagree with that assessment.

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:

rowley wrote:

ONETWOFOREVER wrote: yep Douglas would have been shafted and I would not have shed a tear for he turned out to be a terrible champion.

Ridiculous comment, Douglas beat Tyson by a country mile and nobody on the night had any idea what kind of champ he would be so cannot be a consideration. He turned in a genuinely superb performance on the night and deserved the result and acclaim that should have bought him. Had he been denied this on the cards it would have been truly shameful.

Oh yeah a country mile even though Tyson had him down early, yeah he won that fight by a country mile yeah well done rowely cheers.

Hundreds, possibly thousands, of examples whereby a fighter was dropped, sometimes heavily, only to get back up and win.

Douglas was head and shoulders above Tyson on the night, and thoroughly deserved his win.

Maybe but if he did not get the ko and was subsequently shafted on the cards would it have been bad for boxing on a whole?

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:Maybe but if he did not get the ko and was subsequently shafted on the cards would it have been bad for boxing on a whole?

Yes

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:Maybe but if he did not get the ko and was subsequently shafted on the cards would it have been bad for boxing on a whole?

oxring wrote:I dislike formula 1, NFL and baseball - for me all 3 veer too close to sports_entertainment - where the results are predicated beforehand. With the 3 sports I mentioned, the players are provided with significant assistance to make the plays - whereas a pure sport like boxing - you are on your own for 3 minutes - and no-one should be helping you.

Boxing should be one of the clearest and purest sports out there. Most fights aren't that hard to score. There's a definite and clear way of winning. Both fighters have to avoid choking. What you seem to want to do, ONETWO is take that pure sport and drag it to the ends of sports_entertainment where who wins is irrelevant because its pre-ordained and all that matters is the spectacle beforehand and the bluster of the post-fight interview.

If you really think that's a good thing, trot along to the wrestling board - you're missing your true sporting passion in life.

Read this one again. You might have missed it. Surmises concisely why I believe it would have indeed been quite bad for boxing as a whole.

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:Maybe but if he did not get the ko and was subsequently shafted on the cards would it have been bad for boxing on a whole?

Yes, absolutely. At least in my opinion. I don't buy this idea that it's ok to rob a fighter blind just because it keeps a different, potentially bigger fight alive for the future. When a fighter gets robbed, I can't see any good in it, nor can I find any positives to draw from it.

Unfortunately, not everyone else sees it that way.

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:Maybe but if he did not get the ko and was subsequently shafted on the cards would it have been bad for boxing on a whole?

No, because we would never wish to miss out on Tyson's being a champ behind bars, coming back to mug a terrified Bruno and then feasting on Holyfield's ears, would we?

Heaven forbid! You know, bums on seats, good for boxing and all.

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:Maybe but if he did not get the ko and was subsequently shafted on the cards would it have been bad for boxing on a whole?

I see the point you are making. But in answer to the question - from what perspective are you approaching this? A win for Douglas scuppered a huge financial mega fight so tv companies, promoters, money men all lost out on revenue. But personally as a fan I think the fight with Holyfield (had Douglas been robbed) would have lost aot of its lustre and true meaning as well as dealt the credibility of the sport a masive blow.

I would have rather Tyson lost the fight and fans recorgnised it was just an off night. He could have still fought Holyfield after anyway with that in mind. The problem is this idea that money is the most important thing, unbeaten records must be protected, losses cripple careers - its all a promoter and moneymans way of thinking rather than a fans one. And increasingly fans are buying into it. The result is its becoming a self fullfilling prophecy.

Its always nice to see two unbeaten champions collide in a mega fight and this will make it more marketable but I dont think its worth the cediblity or integrity of the sport. I would have prefferd Tyson dusted himself off, won a fight or two showing us fans it was just an off night, and fought Holyfield a year after. The fight ended up happening in 1996 and it was still massive because Tyson had completely rebuilt his image - and this is with Holyfield coming off a KO loss to Bowe!

HumanWindmill wrote:

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:Maybe but if he did not get the ko and was subsequently shafted on the cards would it have been bad for boxing on a whole?

No, because we would never wish to miss out on Tyson being a champ behind bars, coming back to mug a terrified Bruno and then feast on Holyfield's ears, would we?

Heaven forbid! You know, bums on seats, good for boxing and all.

That really made me laugh out loud but better that (without the prison stint) then out of shape champion Douglas blown away in 2 by Holy.

manos de piedra wrote:

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:Maybe but if he did not get the ko and was subsequently shafted on the cards would it have been bad for boxing on a whole?

I see the point you are making. But in answer to the question - from what perspective are you approaching this? A win for Douglas scuppered a huge financial mega fight so tv companies, promoters, money men all lost out on revenue. But personally as a fan I think the fight with Holyfield (had Douglas been robbed) would have lost aot of its lustre and true meaning as well as dealt the credibility of the sport a masive blow.

I would have rather Tyson lost the fight and fans recorgnised it was just an off night. He could have still fought Holyfield after anyway with that in mind. The problem is this idea that money is the most important thing, unbeaten records must be protected, losses cripple careers - its all a promoter and moneymans way of thinking rather than a fans one. And increasingly fans are buying into it. The result is its becoming a self fullfilling prophecy.

Its always nice to see two unbeaten champions collide in a mega fight and this will make it more marketable but I dont think its worth the cediblity or integrity of the sport. I would have prefferd Tyson dusted himself off, won a fight or two showing us fans it was just an off night, and fought Holyfield a year after. The fight ended up happening in 1996 and it was still massive because Tyson had completely rebuilt his image - and this is with Holyfield coming off a KO loss to Bowe!

You are the only one who gets my point. People here bemoan bad decisions but don't take into the consideration the effects it would have on boxing. We all want to see a fair fight but where would we be had Ortiz beaten Mayweather and Clotty beat Pacman? It can destroy the industry. Bad decisions can be avanged via rematch but the show must go on.

Personally onetwo think you are getting too hung up on what Douglas went on to do, which I admit was a disappointment but this should not take away from what happened in Tokyo, which for sheer drama and unpredictability was one of the most magical nights in the sports history, still stimulates debate to this day, has had documentaries and books made about it.

Upsets are what makes any sport special and for me would much rather be able to remember this as one of the greatest of all time and certainly of my lifetime than one of the biggest shaftings of all time, which anything other than a Douglas win would have been.

DAVE667 wrote:

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:This is prize fighting, its not like other sports. Fighters have to accept bad decisions like football managers have to except a harsh red card or a dodgy penalty its part of the game. What goes around, comes back around.

Not really, some fighters never get the chance to attain those heights again. A bad decision against Man City can be rectified the following week as they play 38 times per EPL season. How many fighters have 38 contests a year?

Yes indeed. Like Dave Tiberi, got robbed against Toney in a world title fight and became so disillusioned he packed it all in. Toney has only recently admitted Tiberi won the fight. Football is hardly the same thing. A boxer might work all his life for one title shot, get that shot, do all the reps in the gym, do all the hard miles on the road, do all that hard sparring and come fight night put his life on the line in pursuit of glory and fight the fight of his life, win the fight, raise his arms in total belief he won, everyone else knows he won and then................................get robbed!

It makes you cry doesn't it?

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:
You are the only one who gets my point. People here bemoan bad decisions but don't take into the consideration the effects it would have on boxing. We all want to see a fair fight but where would we be had Ortiz beaten Mayweather and Clotty beat Pacman? It can destroy the industry. Bad decisions can be avanged via rematch but the show must go on.

Perhaps we could get the boxers to rehearse the fight before hand - that way we'd be guaranteed drama, but the right guy would always win.

fearlessBamber wrote:

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:
You are the only one who gets my point. People here bemoan bad decisions but don't take into the consideration the effects it would have on boxing. We all want to see a fair fight but where would we be had Ortiz beaten Mayweather and Clotty beat Pacman? It can destroy the industry. Bad decisions can be avanged via rematch but the show must go on.

Perhaps we could get the boxers to rehearse the fight before hand - that way we'd be guaranteed drama, but the right guy would always win.

I think you are all on to something here, boxing should be a popularity contest not a sporting test of skill, preparation and tactics. In fact I put it forward that John L Sullivan should in fact still be champion, if deservingly losing a fight should not stand in the way of you winning am not sure why dying should derail the gravy train.

The WBC have started using this method already, perhaps you are onto something ONETWO.

rowley wrote:

fearlessBamber wrote:

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:
You are the only one who gets my point. People here bemoan bad decisions but don't take into the consideration the effects it would have on boxing. We all want to see a fair fight but where would we be had Ortiz beaten Mayweather and Clotty beat Pacman? It can destroy the industry. Bad decisions can be avanged via rematch but the show must go on.

Perhaps we could get the boxers to rehearse the fight before hand - that way we'd be guaranteed drama, but the right guy would always win.

I think you are all on to something here, boxing should be a popularity contest not a sporting test of skill, preparation and tactics. In fact I put it forward that John L Sullivan should in fact still be champion, if deservingly losing a fight should not stand in the way of you winning am not sure why dying should derail the gravy train.

Exactly - Sullivan losing the title has contributed to the destruction of the industry.

Imagine if he were still champ - Wlad steps into the ring, trips over Sulivan's thigh bone and immediately KO'd by a bony fist he falls head first onto.

I sense a Reverse Linear idea forming...

Union Cane wrote:I sense a Reverse Linear idea forming...

Oh dear. It is Christmas I suppose Union, season of goodwill even to reverse linear threads.

I think I preferred when ONETWO was pretending to be a teenage girl. Somehow his/her arguments seemed to make more sense.

88Chris05 wrote:OneTwo, Fists, I believe the scores for Douglas-Tyson were level going in to that tenth round. One judge - quite rightly - had Douglas a good four or five points up by then if my memory serves me correctly, whereas one somehow had it even, and the other laughably having Tyson in front by a point or two (again, that's if my memory is serving me correctly).

We'll never know for sure whether or not Douglas would have been shafted had it gone the full twelve (Tyson would have needed those last two rounds and a knockout just to make the scores competitive in my mind) as he made it an irrelevance in round ten, but the fact that two judges could be so incompetent as to have Tyson level / ahead does make you wonder if the knives were out that night in Tokyo.

Unbelievable! I'd never before heard that!

I'm as big a Tyson fan (almost) as they come but Douglas absolutely hammered him that night! I can only give Tyson the 10-8 9th round for certain (and even that would have been a clear Douglas round were it not the the lat KD).

If any judge actually did have Tyson in front, or even level then it was clearly an attempt to shaft Douglas. Had it gone to the cards and Tyson managed to earn even a plit decision loss that would have been a robbery, let alone if he'd actually managed to retain his belt!

Gentleman01 wrote:
Unbelievable! I'd never before heard that!

Same here - was very surprised.

superflyweight wrote:I think I preferred when ONETWO was pretending to be a teenage girl. Somehow his/her arguments seemed to make more sense.

They make more sense because he's a girl trapped in a man's body probably.

fearlessBamber wrote:

Gentleman01 wrote:
Unbelievable! I'd never before heard that!

Same here - was very surprised.

I'd heard it. Did you also know that due to the "long count" If Tyson and Douglas were only fighting for the WBC belt then the fight would have subsequently been changed from a Douglas KO win to a No Contest. It's only because the WBA and IBF refused to take the sh** shovelling Don King influenced WBC's verdict that Douglas remained champion.

Tyson against Douglas was not a robbery Douglas won by KO so how can that be a robbery? Imo Tyson was not at his best that night, nowhere near it. Tyson was one of the best heavyweights of all time only Ali and Lewis were better. Tyson at his best would have absolutely destroyed Douglas in the first or second round probably. He was a different class.

Now Lewis against Holyfield now there was a shameful robbery. Lewis won that fight easily as we all know but the judges were against him. Thankfully there was a rematch which proved Lewis was better. The judges in the first fight should have been sacked and they should have changed that to a Lewis win everyone knew he won that fight so changing the result would have been ok.

Getting tiresome now, Wumgro.

88Chris05 wrote:Getting tiresome now, Wumgro.

You have more patience than me. I tired some time ago.

These days I tend to just read the name at the top of the post - and if I see Waingro - read no further.

Yeah but Tyson/Douglas was a potential robbery in the making. If Douglas hadn't have sparked him that is. Also, even in winning by KO, Douglas could still have been robbed due to the fact the WBC were at one point willing to scrub the fight's existence from history as they believed Douglas should have been counted out by the ref when he was knocked down.

Super D Boon wrote:

fearlessBamber wrote:

Gentleman01 wrote:
Unbelievable! I'd never before heard that!

Same here - was very surprised.

I'd heard it. Did you also know that due to the "long count" If Tyson and Douglas were only fighting for the WBC belt then the fight would have subsequently been changed from a Douglas KO win to a No Contest. It's only because the WBA and IBF refused to take the sh** shovelling Don King influenced WBC's verdict that Douglas remained champion.

Think Douglas' trainer immediately considered this scenario and purposefully grabbed the WBC belt and got out of there sensing something sinister was about to happen.