A better question, rather than asking whether it was a robbery, would be to ask people whether they believe the judges acted fairly and impartially without bias towards the 'money' fighter.

Can anyone truly say they believe that??

Perhaps we shouldn't class a fight like this as a robbery, similar to Sturm/Macklin and many other competitive fights with controversial scores favouring the home or bigger name fighter (Williams/Lara excluded as that fight was not even close). In that case, we clearly require an entirely new word for a fight where the judges have already decided the winner before the first bell sounds and manipulate their scorecards accordingly.

Had Pac fought Marquez' fight he would have won a convincing UD.