People need to stop crying "robbery" in close fights

[bzkfn]

This shit gets on my nerves. Last night I felt Cotto did just enough to win, but sometimes people so badly want to see an upset they're claiming robbery in a fight that could have swung either way. Its as if because Cotto was expected to win, because it was close the other guy should get it by default. Its not a robbery, its just bad luck. Really though, if Clottey had thrown punches in the last 3 rounds instead of giving them away he could have made it clear to the world he was a winner. Instead he looks like a guy that put in a decent effort but ultimately came up short. We had the same thing in January when Berto beat Collazo. It was close as hell but because Berto got the nod we had endless threads on how Collazo was robbed. Calling these fights robberies is an insult to some real judging injustices that happen in the sport.

[Pavlik]

This shit gets on my nerves. Last night I felt Cotto did just enough to win, but sometimes people so badly want to see an upset they're claiming robbery in a fight that could have swung either way. Its as if because Cotto was expected to win, because it was close the other guy should get it by default. Its not a robbery, its just bad luck. Really though, if Clottey had thrown punches in the last 3 rounds instead of giving them away he could have made it clear to the world he was a winner. Instead he looks like a guy that put in a decent effort but ultimately came up short. We had the same thing in January when Berto beat Collazo. It was close as hell but because Berto got the nod we had endless threads on how Collazo was robbed. Calling these fights robberies is an insult to some real judging injustices that happen in the sport.

Exactly and to add to that Cotto did what a GREAT champ should've done start strong and finish strong which he did. He dropped the bigger guy in the first and won the last 2 rounds convincingly.

[JazMerkin]

I wouldn't say Cotto won the last 2 rounds convincingly, the 11th maybe, but I thought Clottey did more in the final round.

Anyway agree on people crying robbery over any fight. I could understand the fighters feeling they were robbed, they were in there, but even though I thought Clottey won by a round or 2, calling it a robbery is a joke, as it was when people were doing it after Berto/Collazo. It is funny that there are some people who were creating threads on that fight being a robbery, are now complaining about people calling this one a robbery (not you bzkfn, just a few other posters).

I also don't like the post-fight, 'let's try & run the other fighter down for whatever reason because it was close' kinda threads. 'Cotto is a dirty fighter', 'Clottey is a coward', those kinda things really piss me off. Both guys went out fought at a tough pace & gave us as fans a great fight, & all people can do is pick holes.

I think one thing that does get on my nerves was the scoring though. Even though I thought Berto beat Collazo, the guy who had it 115-111 clearly showed that he was going to 'help' Berto to a win no matter what, whilst the guy who had it 116-111 to Cotto yesterday showed a similar attitude. I mean really if 100s of people can realistically score a fight like that (probably 114-113 or 115-112 to either guy) than how can pro judges struggle so much. It leaves a bad taste in the mouth.

[CGM]

This shit gets on my nerves. Last night I felt Cotto did just enough to win, but sometimes people so badly want to see an upset they're claiming robbery in a fight that could have swung either way. Its as if because Cotto was expected to win, because it was close the other guy should get it by default. Its not a robbery, its just bad luck. Really though, if Clottey had thrown punches in the last 3 rounds instead of giving them away he could have made it clear to the world he was a winner. Instead he looks like a guy that put in a decent effort but ultimately came up short. We had the same thing in January when Berto beat Collazo. It was close as hell but because Berto got the nod we had endless threads on how Collazo was robbed. Calling these fights robberies is an insult to some real judging injustices that happen in the sport.

Clear to everyone but the judges, two of whom had it 116-111, 115-112 for Cotto. Otherwise, you make a decent case.

I really think the scoring system in boxing is kind of senseless. Boxing has ten points to work with, dammit maybe they should start using more of them. I think then a lot of problems with so-called dodgy decisions would disappear. If every round has to be 10-9, or 10-8, may as well make them 2-0 or 1-0

[Quinito]

Close fight would automatically mean robbery these days. Its a crying shame.

[Pugilistic]

Good post.

I agree 100%.

people won't change though.

[Master]

Agreed, robbery is the first Lewis v Holyfield, not Cotto v Clottey

[blegit]

Clottey could have fought more aggressive especially when you have for 9 rounds a badly cut Cotto. The fight was close and I personally was astonished how Clottey refused to capitalize on the cut. Cotto had vision problems and couldn't see the right hand all night. I think the heart Cotto showed and the lack of heart or intelligence Clottey showed played a part in the scoring of the judges. Clottey complained every chance he had while Cotto refused to let a very bad cut end the fight. I don't think many fighters would have fought on with that much of a disability. That cut was bad, Cotto fought on, and I think it played a part in the scoring. Not saying Cotto was given the fight because of that but in a close fight something like this plays a factor.

[fan johnny]

This shit gets on my nerves. Last night I felt Cotto did just enough to win, but sometimes people so badly want to see an upset they're claiming robbery in a fight that could have swung either way. Its as if because Cotto was expected to win, because it was close the other guy should get it by default. Its not a robbery, its just bad luck. Really though, if Clottey had thrown punches in the last 3 rounds instead of giving them away he could have made it clear to the world he was a winner. Instead he looks like a guy that put in a decent effort but ultimately came up short. We had the same thing in January when Berto beat Collazo. It was close as hell but because Berto got the nod we had endless threads on how Collazo was robbed. Calling these fights robberies is an insult to some real judging injustices that happen in the sport.

Agreed! Seems like some fans want boxing to be like American Idol, where they get to vote....

[C-Lo]

It won't change... One good example is, up to these days, we still hear people crying "robbery" in JMM's fights with PAC... Those were close fights...
.

I'm gonna throw up...

This is exactly the reason the "Pac Forum" was created...

[XaduBoxer]

It won't change... One good example is, up to these days, we still hear people crying "robbery" in JMM's fights with PAC... Those were close fights...
.

I'm gonna throw up...

This is exactly the reason the "Pac Forum" was created...

I'm just citing an example and a very good example at that... You can still hear people right here on this very forum still crying that JMM was robbed against PAC... That was a close fight!!

If you feel that I improperly brought up PAC's name in that post then it's your own opinion... I respect that...
.

[bzkfn]

It won't change... One good example is, up to these days, we still hear people crying "robbery" in JMM's fights with PAC... Those were close fights...
.

I'm gonna throw up...

This is exactly the reason the "Pac Forum" was created...

I'm just citing an example and a very good example at that... You can still hear people right here on this very forum still crying that JMM was robbed against PAC... That was a close fight!!

If you feel that I improperly brought up PAC's name in that post then it's your own opinion... I respect that...
.

As much as it pains me to say it, Xadu is right for once. I thought JMM won the fight, but some rounds were really close. I think people are more pissed that Pacquiao didn't grant him an immediate rematch, because it was warranted.

[XaduBoxer]

I'm gonna throw up...

This is exactly the reason the "Pac Forum" was created...

I'm just citing an example and a very good example at that... You can still hear people right here on this very forum still crying that JMM was robbed against PAC... That was a close fight!!

If you feel that I improperly brought up PAC's name in that post then it's your own opinion... I respect that...
.

As much as it pains me to say it, Xadu is right for once. I thought JMM won the fight, but some rounds were really close. I think people are more pissed that Pacquiao didn't grant him an immediate rematch, because it was warranted.

Thanks and I can safely assume that you didn't cry robbery about that... even a bit of robbery...
.