Quote Originally Posted by Britkid View Post
It is ridiculous to change decisions because you do not like them. Unless you have seen every bout in boxing history, how can you even try to be consistant with that theory?

But there is another form of editing boxing records, that is very real.

In 1981 a young unbeaten Mexican fighter was fighting a journeyman. The prospect decked the journeyman, but struck his opponent while he was on the floor. The referee seemingly rightly according to Newspaper reports, dq'd the prospect.

The next day, the prospects manager, who also helpfully happened to be the head of the local Boxing Commission, overturned the referee's decision and awarded the prospect a KO win...

A decade later that 'prospect' is now multi time world champion and still claiming an unbeaten record. Indeed his promoter is selling him on his journey to 100 and 0.

As brilliant as he was, if Julio Cesar Chavez was 'and 1' the mystic would not quite of been so much. And it should be noted until the late 80s Chavez's record showed that early defeat in some publications. Then with the magic century coming into view, it was dropped...
Nothing to do with "not liking" the decision.

I'm talking about when it's 100% blatantly obvious.

Like broner v Quintero, for 5 rounds of an 8 round fight he barely threw a jab while Quintero landed at ease, Yet one judge gave broner 6 rounds to 2 on the cards?

I also mean fights that are MASSIVELY famous for being robberies, where almost everyone agrees it was a robbery, again like Fury v McDermott 1.