Edited reality in boxing records.

[Britkid]

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?

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.

So as only 'almost everyone agreed it was a robbery' it is thus not '100% blatantly obvious'. So that fight would not be changed in your criteria?

And when did Fury/McDermottI make it up there with Ali/Foreman, Louis/Schmelling, Tyson/Holyfield et al as 'MASSIVELY famous'?