why are there bad decisions?

[mofo2]

Probably all the above, however I don't believe the result was as outrageous as everyone seems to believe it was....Should Cunningham have won? He probably edged it but this wasn't a massive robbery in my eyes!

[erics44]

Probably all the above, however I don't believe the result was as outrageous as everyone seems to believe it was....Should Cunningham have won? He probably edged it but this wasn't a massive robbery in my eyes!

yep i agree in general it could be any or all of the above

i am more refering to the fights that can be considered to be elite btw

i should have added another item on the poll something like fans getting over excited

pac marquez 3 was controvertial, before i saw it I was expecting a terrible decision from the reaction and when i watched it (after the event) i thought pac deserved it

i havent seen the adamek cunningham fight so i cant comment, nor have i seen pac bradley?

off the top of my head the worst decision i have seen in a while was helenius chisora, being very kind helenius won 3 rounds

i find it very hard to make any kind of case for him

he was lazy, being out punched, wasnt the agressor, why did he win the fight?

[mofo2]

Chisora v Helenius was clearly a fucked up result, but out of the three fights mentioned it is probably the only one that sticks outright as a poor poor result, there could be argument that Bradley and Adamek did enough to win for me, so I guess most of it is down to interpretation!

[Master]

Bad decisions are relative to the person who believes they are a bad decision. Bad decisions infer that it was a wrong decision and a lot of the times it is in reality just a close decision that went against their fighter.

bad decisions often have a mis-interpretation of a significant number of rounds being scored for a particular fighter. The best example is ODH v Trinidad most people had Oscar winning the middle rounds and Tito the latter rounds but the decisive factor would be who won the early rounds and that is where the arguments start. Those that scored it to Oscar will see a bad decision but those that score it to mostly Tito will see it as a closer decision.

The same could be used for Cooper v Bugner.

Everyone will have their own real bad decisions mines Holyfield v Lewis 1.

[IamInuit]

Bad decisions are relative to the person who believes they are a bad decision. Bad decisions infer that it was a wrong decision and a lot of the times it is in reality just a close decision that went against their fighter.

bad decisions often have a mis-interpretation of a significant number of rounds being scored for a particular fighter. The best example is ODH v Trinidad most people had Oscar winning the middle rounds and Tito the latter rounds but the decisive factor would be who won the early rounds and that is where the arguments start. Those that scored it to Oscar will see a bad decision but those that score it to mostly Tito will see it as a closer decision.

The same could be used for Cooper v Bugner.

Everyone will have their own real bad decisions mines Holyfield v Lewis 1.

Exactly. Like the judges we are human and not infallible. But we are not paid to be impartial. I posted the Cunningham/Adamek card because of the diversity in the rounds. I cannot recall three cards scored in such a manner in a close fight. Its as if no self interest was applied. None of the three judges agreed with each other in almost any round. Is that true objectivity or stupidity?

On the other hand...Whitaker vs Ramirez 1 was unadulterated no doubt paid for stupidity. Same goes for Tiberi vs Toney.

I miss 15 rds for championship fights. At least they closed the gap.

[beenKOed]

Bad decisions are relative to the person who believes they are a bad decision. Bad decisions infer that it was a wrong decision and a lot of the times it is in reality just a close decision that went against their fighter.

bad decisions often have a mis-interpretation of a significant number of rounds being scored for a particular fighter. The best example is ODH v Trinidad most people had Oscar winning the middle rounds and Tito the latter rounds but the decisive factor would be who won the early rounds and that is where the arguments start. Those that scored it to Oscar will see a bad decision but those that score it to mostly Tito will see it as a closer decision.

The same could be used for Cooper v Bugner.

Everyone will have their own real bad decisions mines Holyfield v Lewis 1.

Exactly. Like the judges we are human and not infallible. But we are not paid to be impartial. I posted the Cunningham/Adamek card because of the diversity in the rounds. I cannot recall three cards scored in such a manner in a close fight. Its as if no self interest was applied. None of the three judges agreed with each other in almost any round. Is that true objectivity or stupidity?

On the other hand...Whitaker vs Ramirez 1 was unadulterated no doubt paid for stupidity. Same goes for Tiberi vs Toney.

I miss 15 rds for championship fights. At least they closed the gap.

Remember when the "championship rounds" were the 13th-15th?

I like the "lone wolf" breakdown, it will identify a problem judge over time but so will score cards.

[Freedom]

I had Adamek winning 115-113 and so did a lot of other people. It was a close fight and not a robbery. If Cunningham wanted to win so badly, he should have thrown more power punches in the later rounds instead of running.

There are bad decisions everywhere, but I've seen far more robberies and shady refereeing in the USA favoring American boxers than anywhere else in the world.

Yet American boxers, media people and fans whine and cry more about losing a close fight than fans in the UK, Phillipines, Russia, Germany and elsewhere do when it happens to their fighters.

Pacquiao was robbed against Bradley, Ponce de Leon was robbed against Broner, Castillo beat Mayweather in their first fight, Lewis clearly beat Holyfield in their first fight, Meehan should have won against Brewster, Kotelnik was robbed against Alexander, Ward had a home referee who let him deliberately headbutt and otherwise foul against Kessler, Berto cut Zaveck with a deliberate headbutt and then won a TKO, etc.

America leads the world in shady officiating.

[roberto duran legend]

Probably all the above, however I don't believe the result was as outrageous as everyone seems to believe it was....Should Cunningham have won? He probably edged it but this wasn't a massive robbery in my eyes!

yep i agree in general it could be any or all of the above

i am more refering to the fights that can be considered to be elite btw

i should have added another item on the poll something like fans getting over excited

pac marquez 3 was controvertial, before i saw it I was expecting a terrible decision from the reaction and when i watched it (after the event) i thought pac deserved it

i havent seen the adamek cunningham fight so i cant comment, nor have i seen pac bradley?

off the top of my head the worst decision i have seen in a while was helenius chisora, being very kind helenius won 3 rounds

i find it very hard to make any kind of case for him

he was lazy, being out punched, wasnt the agressor, why did he win the fight?

You are talking bad decisions and you think Pacman won the 3rd fight with Marquez.
Hope you are never a judge mate.

[bzkfn]

The majority are down to corrupt hometown judging or just keeping the house fighter in the win column because it makes good future business sense. A great example of this was Felix Sturm vs. Oscar. Everyone knew De La Hoya vs. Hopkins was next and it was supposed to be that Oscar collected the 4th belt so they could fight for all 4 middleweight belts. If Sturm had been given that decision it would have ruined one of the highest grossing fights in boxing history, and in kind would have cost the city of Las Vegas alot of money. For the life of me I can't quite understand why Sturm bitched about the decision as he must have saw that coming. To be fair, he has more than made up for it with the amount of dodgy decisions he's received in Germany.