Quote Originally Posted by Master View Post
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.