Should bad decisions count in your final standing??

I have two real ways of ranking fighters..............Record and longevity.......If two are very comparable then the best fighter gets the slot above............I respect others who rank differently but I imagine most are on the same lines.....

Bad decisions don't seem to count in legacy.... and I admit they don't with me either as I'm pretty black and white on the issue..

I have Spinks a lot closer to Tunney than most because I think his heavyweight career is pretty similar to Tunney's........Yet he got a shocking win over Holmes in the 2nd fight....

I have Manny Top 15/20 and part of that ranking are his wins over JMM and yet I think he lost 3/4.....I imagine he'd be closer to 20 than 15 If I counted  3 JMM defeats......

Conversely JMM suffers on my lists for not having 3/4 wins over Manny and yet in my mind he won those fights convincingly...

Walcott I imagine hits most Top 15 lists If he beats Louis...............Even Louis said he lost that fight..

Bradley was number 3 p4p.... and beating Manny was a large part of that.....I thought he lost by 3/4 points..

Bad decisions don't seem to count......But should they ??

Yes

I remember Lockridge going out to Puerto Rico and getting absolutly jobbed against Gomez, terrible decision

Disagree, one or two "gifts" in a career don't define that persons standing - it's what they do in their career as a whole.

Ottke isn't in anyones ATG list and he got more gifts than a kid at Christmas.

Manny jobbed Marquez a couple of times but is still an ATG based on what else he did in his career.

Etc.

Depends on how bad the decision is, we've seen some shockers lately which should be discarded (Pac/Bradley) as every man and his dog knows the real score, the problem becomes on what you define a bad decision, something that's close would have to stand I think.

Coxy001 wrote:Disagree, one or two "gifts" in a career don't define that persons standing - it's what they do in their career as a whole.

Ottke isn't in anyones ATG list and he got more gifts than a kid at Christmas.

Manny jobbed Marquez a couple of times but is still an ATG based on what else he did in his career.

Etc.

It matters as regards to placing........

If Mayweather was 1-1 with castillo.............I imagine he'd probably be out of more top 10s than in.....

Spinks was 1-1 Holmes...........He's probably 20 places lower.....

Young beats Ali and he's a top 25 heavy...

Derbymanc wrote:Depends on how bad the decision is, we've seen some shockers lately which should be discarded (Pac/Bradley) as every man and his dog knows the real score, the problem becomes on what you define a bad decision, something that's close would have to stand I think.

A win is a win is a win........................Is pretty much Boxing mantra when it comes to ranking fighters.....

I think Chavez best win was probably Taylor..It's probably the biggest shaft of the last thirty years too..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Derbymanc wrote:Depends on how bad the decision is, we've seen some shockers lately which should be discarded (Pac/Bradley) as every man and his dog knows the real score, the problem becomes on what you define a bad decision, something that's close would have to stand I think.

I think Chavez best win was probably Taylor..It's probably the biggest shaft of the last thirty years too..

Doesn't matter if there's 1 minute, 10 seconds or 1 second left.. There's nowhere in the rules that says a ref should let a fight continue or not after a knockdown based on how long there is left in a round.

And I'd rate the Camacho win higher. Comfortably as well in my eyes.

Taylor was shafted...........Red lights were flashing on the posts behind Taylor when he was counting..

Steele House fighters.....

HOF referee my ass...............Fairplay to Bruno's camp for complaining about him before the fight with Tyson..........

Bruno got his last warning in the first..............Shameless...

I disagree Truss, soemthing like the Chavez/Taylor fight is still discussed today with people sitting on both sides of the fence, the Bradley/Pac fight is widely given to Pac regardless of what the judges said.

Just think if another Judge had a bad card on the Mayweather/Alvarez card, don't think anyone would be saying, 'yup Alv deserved it' (unless your purposefully Wumming.)

It's a tricky one though as the history books will always state the bad decision and if the historians/writers don't do their homework it could be attributed as a decent win.

Good topic though

Derbymanc wrote:I disagree Truss, soemthing like the Chavez/Taylor fight is still discussed today with people sitting on both sides of the fence, the Bradley/Pac fight is widely given to Pac regardless of what the judges said.

Just think if another Judge had a bad card on the Mayweather/Alvarez card, don't think anyone would be saying, 'yup Alv deserved it' (unless your purposefully Wumming.)

It's a tricky one though as the history books will always state the bad decision and if the historians/writers don't do their homework it could be attributed as a decent win.

Good topic though

If Alvarez had won...............It would count on his ledger.............

I had Barkley 116-113 Duran...........Very contentious back in 88 or 89......

Do I count it for Duran.............Yep........

I only gave Manny one round against JMM with a drawn one chucked in...

All about winning............But maybe it shouldn't be...

It would be on his ledger and someone that only looked at that without looking into it would think it was a legitimate win. When it comes to seeing where they sit in overall rankings then (hopefully ) the historians would take into account what actually happened in the fights. (Think Primo Carnera, was a world champ but some of his wins are thought of as 'dodgy' so it counts against him regardless of what the ledger says)

Although think as you pointed out above if it's for a genuine great then it shouldn't affect them that much even if someone believes that 'contentious' decision was genuine

No job on Taylor. He was unable to answer the ref's call. Regardless if Chavez could land a punch in those last two seconds, he was in no position to take it. Chavez could have thrown a punch after the bell, there's no force field to stop him. Taylor couldn't continue, otherwise he'd have said he could.

Dipper Brown wrote:No job on Taylor. He was unable to answer the ref's call. Regardless if Chavez could land a punch in those last two seconds, he was in no position to take it. Chavez could have thrown a punch after the bell, there's no force field to stop him. Taylor couldn't continue, otherwise he'd have said he could.

Bollox......He was robbed ....

Watch Hearns v Barkley..............Hearn's was dead and he let him continue....Let Tyson nearly kill Bruno...Didn't stop Rosario against Chavez....when he was getting hammered.....

Two seconds left...The examination was rushed because he saw the lights and didn't want the bell to go before he could stop him !!...Knew chavez couldn't get over there quick enough to hurt him anyway......

Helped his boss out....Stunk to high heaven..

Shameful..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Dipper Brown wrote:No job on Taylor. He was unable to answer the ref's call. Regardless if Chavez could land a punch in those last two seconds, he was in no position to take it. Chavez could have thrown a punch after the bell, there's no force field to stop him. Taylor couldn't continue, otherwise he'd have said he could.

Bollox......He was robbed ....

Watch Hearns v Barkley..............Hearn's was dead and he let him continue....Let Tyson nearly kill Bruno...Didn't stop Rosario against Chavez....when he was getting hammered.....

Two seconds left...The examination was rushed because he saw the lights and didn't want the bell to go before he could stop him !!...Knew chavez couldn't get over there quick enough to hurt him anyway......

Helped his boss out....Stunk to high heaven..

Shameful..

The examination wasn't rushed. Just rewatched it as couldn't remember the exact timings but they are as follows.

Knockdown: 17 seconds left
Count ends: 8 seconds left
Fight waved off: 3 seconds left

I'm no maths genius but he had 5 seconds to make a call and he repeatedly asked Taylor if he was ok and didn't respond.

Truss, can you show me the rule where it says a ref must take in to account how long there is left in a round regarding whether they should stop the fight or not? I look forwards to your reply.

It's going to depend on how in depth people get to your record and how close to the event.

Robberies I think should be discounted but bad decisions and other context around the fight is largely lost with time.

If I thought he'd stopped it fairly I wouldn't be complaining.........

Steele and /King/Arum.........

Competitive Ruddock stopped early against Tyson...........

Bruno nearly killed when taking a pounding in the 5th...

Rosario destroyed in a one sided fight against Chavez.....

Hearns dead on his feet against Barkley after a knockdown and allowed to try to get back into it..

Bruno warned for holding and hitting against Tyson..............Tyson smacked Bruno when he was down and butted and elbowed all night without rebuke...

It was a crap stoppage............Taylor deserved to go on........and the decison was rightly puked on in KO and Ring magazine as well as on HBO..

Scottrf wrote:It's going to depend on how in depth people get to your record and how close to the event.

Robberies I think should be discounted but bad decisions and other context around the fight is largely lost with time.

Very true...............

Very few fighters If any in the lists have "bad" wins held against them...........Or vice versa..

Dr. Flip Homansky, who examined Taylor following the fight and immediately sent him to the hospital, summarized his injuries by saying "Meldrick suffered a facial fracture, he was urinating pure blood, his face was grotesquely swollen... this was a kid who was truly beaten up to the face, the body, and the brain". Taylor also showed signs of disorientation and short-term memory loss common to head injuries and concussions.

Feel Taylor was treated harshly and Steele should have let the clock go, but let's not make out like it was a Taylor masterclass that got totally upset by a Chavez screw job. Taylor, whilst ahead on the cards, was totally beat up.

It was a Taylor masterclass...........

He was 9-2 up and made the number 1 fighter in the world look like a lumbering slug....

Doesn't come much better...............Watch the fight..........Brilliant exhibition....

His injuries before and after were irrelevant..........Alan Minter never would have won a fight..

Not relevant? Convenient.

He won rounds but was beaten to a pulp.

Watch the fight..instead of reading about it...

You haven't watched it.....We both know that !!.

Sorry Truss but his injuries are very relevant, the Ref's in there to state whether he thinks a fighter can carry on and if he's in the state that was reported then there's the possibility that one more hit could have done major damage (although look up a video of Taylor now and he's a mess speaking wise.)

It would have been nice to see him get the Win and there's an argument for either way but you can't ignore what the docs say.

Steele could see Taylor had internal injuries could he..........

He had a habit of seemingly protecting the house fighter...........Just like the Froch-Groves referee..

Two seconds left...lights flashing behind him and in better shape than Bruno and Hearns when he let them continue..

9-2...Two seconds left.. He deserved a chance to go on..

It stunk.............If I thought for one minute it was ended because of Taylor I may feel differently..

In my opinion he was protecting King's commodity..

You haven't watched the fight either..admit it ??

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Watch the fight..instead of reading about it...

You haven't watched it.....We both know that !!.

Watched a docu on it a few years back. Feel well tuned up, thanks.

Besides, very ironic comment coming from a guy exposed just the other week endlessly commenting (and criticising) fights which he'd never even watched!!

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:Yes

I remember Lockridge going out to Puerto Rico and getting absolutly jobbed against Gomez, terrible decision

shocker wasn't it ....10-5 at least..

There aren't really examples in other sports were results have been changed retrospectively from poor decisions. In football, nobody gets a Champions League title decision reversed based on poor refereeing for example. Perhaps in tennis you can say points can be challenged but I don't think its the same as appealing the overall result.

Also, over the course of careers it appears that decisions balance out. Not saying that two wrongs make a right, well I sorta am, but the human factor is one of the things that really makes sport interesting. We all see a fight differently.

Also by choosing decisions that were incorrect in your opinion only allows a person to use it to back up a fighter they like or alternatively put down a fighter they dislike.

Take Groves vs Froch one. The ref waves it off. Some people say correctly and others disagree. So who gets to decide if it should count against Groves or not? Boxing doesn't have a perfect system but perhaps the current one is the best available.

See you haven't answered my question Truss, just spouting more air in the vain hope it masks the question that you haven't been able to respond to.

A ref is in no way shape or form obliged to give a fighter the benefit of the doubt because there's only a few seconds left in the fight. Why is there no such rule? Because it would start becoming a grey area i.e. Taylor gets flattened and the ref goes to himself "there's only 8 seconds left once I call them back in" at which point Chavez flattens and kills him.

Nowhere, absolutely no effing where, do refs have to let a fight go on "because there was only a couple of seconds left".

And a "Taylor masterclass"? My my, even by your standards that's the biggest amount of bull crap I've seen for all of a day. He got beaten up, pure and simple. It's why most sensible/knowledgeable fans name that as one of the fights you'd look at for ending a career. He never reached those same heights again and was pretty much finished as a fighter after the punishment he took.

A round lasts 180 seconds. The ref is entitled to stop a fight at any second in that time. There aren't rules saying with 3 seconds to go he shouldn't. It is the refs job to protect a fighter, not to apply a thought process that involves ifs/buts/maybes and guesswork (of whether he could get punched again). END EFFING OF!!!!!!!

Pedro147 wrote:There aren't really examples in other sports were results have been changed retrospectively from poor decisions. In football, nobody gets a Champions League title decision reversed based on poor refereeing for example. Perhaps in tennis you can say points can be challenged but I don't think its the same as appealing the overall result.

Also, over the course of careers it appears that decisions balance out. Not saying that two wrongs make a right, well I sorta am, but the human factor is one of the things that really makes sport interesting. We all see a fight differently.

Also by choosing decisions that were incorrect in your opinion only allows a person to use it to back up a fighter they like or alternatively put down a fighter they dislike.

Take Groves vs Froch one. The ref waves it off. Some people say correctly and others disagree. So who gets to decide if it should count against Groves or not? Boxing doesn't have a perfect system but perhaps the current one is the best available.

Fair enough it's a good post......

Not sure a career high win over Joe Louis being taken from you..... can even itself out when you're probably ten spaces lower as a result in the Heavy rankings....

Not sure if your talking to me Truss, but i've seen it a few times now, I tend to revisit it (especially the end) whenever the endless debate of whether it should have been stopped comes up.

I was undecided and tend to flip from one to the other but reading what the doc says about it then i'd have to say that the ref was correct (how much would we be complaining if he'd have let it go on and he would have been seriously hurt.) Either way though it doesn't really fit the argument of the loss being held against him as most people still hold him in high regard.

Any obvious bad decisions tend to be ignored anyway and everyone omits certain things when talking about their favourite boxers as a way of trying to make them seem better (Seems daft to me but hey ho, if someone doesn't like a boxer I do then it's no big deal)

The Taylor stoppage was the correct decision in my view (and I was a Taylor fan). One more shot could have killed him - and Meldrick was a sitting duck after taking a subtle hiding as Chavez gobbled up ground on him. The fight effectively finished Taylor as a fighter. Steele couldn't have known how close the final bell was. Allowing Chavez a free shot - which was what Steele would have been ratifying had he waved Chavez on - could have maimed him (or worse).

Does Ali suffer for having been gifted decisions over Norton and Young (and getting the nod over the likes of Jones and Shavers)? He doesn't.

But that's my point..

Read the thread..

Na. I read a couple of words about you ranking fighters and realised I had better things to do. No-one cares how you rank fighters - or in which order. It's bizarre you imagine they do with the nonsense you post up here.

It's like Michael Olajide's Jheri curl (or something else utterly unrelated).

hazharrison wrote:Na. I read a couple of words about you ranking fighters and realised I had better things to do. No-one cares how you rank fighters - or in which order. It's bizarre you imagine they do with the nonsense you post up here.

It's like Michael Olajide's Jheri curl (or something else utterly unrelated).

Fair enough......Now off you go

Derbymanc wrote:Not sure if your talking to me Truss, but i've seen it a few times now, I tend to revisit it (especially the end) whenever the endless debate of whether it should have been stopped comes up.

I was undecided and tend to flip from one to the other but reading what the doc says about it then i'd have to say that the ref was correct (how much would we be complaining if he'd have let it go on and he would have been seriously hurt.) Either way though it doesn't really fit the argument of the loss being held against him as most people still hold him in high regard.

Any obvious bad decisions tend to be ignored anyway and everyone omits certain things when talking about their favourite boxers as a way of trying to make them seem better (Seems daft to me but hey ho, if someone doesn't like a boxer I do then it's no big deal)

The Doc could have stopped it at anytime.......He didn't.......Frazier spent time in hospital after he beat Ali as did Holy after Qawi...

The referee can't read the doctor's mind... Two seconds to go.... the referee knew it.......Hurried his apparaisal and stopped it...

If it had been Mills Lane I may have cut him some slack......but not this guy with his record in "King" fights..

You don't agree...that's okay....At least you've watched it though..

Surely the king of the dodgy decision should be Sven Ottke? Without home advantage he's have 4 or 5 losses on his "undefeated" record.

He (Steele) didn't ask me if I was okay, didn't give me no count, no questions, he just stopped the fight."-Meldrick Taylor

Hearns v Barkley. ...Chavez v Rosario. ..

Two seconds...lights flashing..hurried appraisal..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zz-LahFtZig

59:36 onwards

Steele saw the lights....Why was he rushing his appraisal..He knew the kid couldn't get hit anymore....

The kid was screwed out of the prize his performance thoroughly deserved..

Very sad..

Anyway we won't agree and I've got to go to some boring dinner.

Fair enough. Just thought state of Taylors face probably contributed towards the decision.