Edited reality in boxing records.

[scribbs]

I'm just curious about this, do any of you do this?

When I believe a fighter has lost a fight, I class it as a loss, and every time they fight I just sort of ignore the bullshit record they read out and go by my own edited reality.

For instance

In my own mind Adrien Broners record is 25-1-1.
Tyson Fury is 20-1-0
Calzaghe is 46-0-1 (Robin Reid got the draw)

I almost cringe when they mention these 2 in the same sentence as the word undefeated.



So when I fighter gets a bum decision do you class it as a loss or just accepted it and consider it a legit win?

I've done this for years. I accept the record on paper tho as you cannot really change what's happened. Thats why we have a number of paper champs throughout history like David Haye being a Heavyweight champ, er no, but I do refer to him as a former Cruiser Champ.

Personally I think you have to accept what's occurred but still have your own take on the situation. For me Calzaghe would have 2 draws, Reid & Hopkins although the Hopkins fight leaves a sour taste because if Joe could have carried on without Bernard feigning injury then it would have been a razor thin win the the Welshman.

Clarification: Yes I do this but also accept the record that's put forward. Contradictory I know.

[erics44]

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.

i dont necessarily agree that fury macdermott 1 was a robbery

you can form whatever opinion you like about fights as every fan does but a fighter has only one record

you could get 10 boxing fans in a room and discuss any fighter's records and mix and match opinions and the fighter could go from an undefeated 20-0 to a 9-11 journeyman

[erics44]

I'm just curious about this, do any of you do this?

When I believe a fighter has lost a fight, I class it as a loss, and every time they fight I just sort of ignore the bullshit record they read out and go by my own edited reality.

For instance

In my own mind Adrien Broners record is 25-1-1.
Tyson Fury is 20-1-0
Calzaghe is 46-0-1 (Robin Reid got the draw)

I almost cringe when they mention these 2 in the same sentence as the word undefeated.



So when I fighter gets a bum decision do you class it as a loss or just accepted it and consider it a legit win?

I've done this for years. I accept the record on paper tho as you cannot really change what's happened. Thats why we have a number of paper champs throughout history like David Haye being a Heavyweight champ, er no, but I do refer to him as a former Cruiser Champ.

Personally I think you have to accept what's occurred but still have your own take on the situation. For me Calzaghe would have 2 draws, Reid & Hopkins although the Hopkins fight leaves a sour taste because if Joe could have carried on without Bernard feigning injury then it would have been a razor thin win the the Welshman.

Clarification: Yes I do this but also accept the record that's put forward. Contradictory I know.

Just coz you dont like shit doesnt mean some shit didnt happen

[scribbs]

I'm just curious about this, do any of you do this?

When I believe a fighter has lost a fight, I class it as a loss, and every time they fight I just sort of ignore the bullshit record they read out and go by my own edited reality.

For instance

In my own mind Adrien Broners record is 25-1-1.
Tyson Fury is 20-1-0
Calzaghe is 46-0-1 (Robin Reid got the draw)

I almost cringe when they mention these 2 in the same sentence as the word undefeated.



So when I fighter gets a bum decision do you class it as a loss or just accepted it and consider it a legit win?

I've done this for years. I accept the record on paper tho as you cannot really change what's happened. Thats why we have a number of paper champs throughout history like David Haye being a Heavyweight champ, er no, but I do refer to him as a former Cruiser Champ.

Personally I think you have to accept what's occurred but still have your own take on the situation. For me Calzaghe would have 2 draws, Reid & Hopkins although the Hopkins fight leaves a sour taste because if Joe could have carried on without Bernard feigning injury then it would have been a razor thin win the the Welshman.

Clarification: Yes I do this but also accept the record that's put forward. Contradictory I know.

Just coz you dont like shit doesnt mean some shit didnt happen

but he ain't a heavy champ. he's a heavyweight titlist & that's the difference.

being a boxing fan I would have thought you had some intelligence to know that

[Vendettos]

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.

i dont necessarily agree that fury macdermott 1 was a robbery

you can form whatever opinion you like about fights as every fan does but a fighter has only one record

you could get 10 boxing fans in a room and discuss any fighter's records and mix and match opinions and the fighter could go from an undefeated 20-0 to a 9-11 journeyman

Then I don't respect your opinions anymore.

The pundits couldn't believe it nor could Furys own camp I bet.

[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'?

[Beanflicker]

I always go by the record books, because as a boxer you don't have to convince the fans you won, you have to convince 3 judges you won (or be well connected enough to have the judges in your pocket).

But in extreme cases, yeah I will astrix the record. I don't do it with close fights. But we all know Roy Jones beat Park Si Hun. We all know Pernell beat JCC. Ect ect. It's impossible for me to talk about certain records without bringing up the fact that they got a gift or robbed.

[Onetime]

Ha so it's okay that your corner start a riot? Boxing has rules if your corner comes in the ring you are DQed, you want special treatment for Floyd

@Onetime - You're only hating on Floyd because he's an American and everyone hates America.

See you can't be honest, I don't blindly defend American or black fighters but the garbage that I see from people who hug Euros against guys like Floyd, Danny, Wilder, B-hop, Devon and Quillin. GGG could start a riot and you would ride him, I don't do that.

[IamInuit]

I'm just curious about this, do any of you do this?

When I believe a fighter has lost a fight, I class it as a loss, and every time they fight I just sort of ignore the bullshit record they read out and go by my own edited reality.

For instance

In my own mind Adrien Broners record is 25-1-1.
Tyson Fury is 20-1-0
Calzaghe is 46-0-1 (Robin Reid got the draw)

I almost cringe when they mention these 2 in the same sentence as the word undefeated.



So when I fighter gets a bum decision do you class it as a loss or just accepted it and consider it a legit win?

Great, great question. I've been thinking about it since you posted it and that's why I have not responded. I'm still thinking about it and I certainly will not attempt to answer it with a sentence but rest be assured that personally I do take what I consider to be fabricated records into account. George Foreman did not beat Axel Shultz.

[Boxer4life]

this is slowly going to turn into a fuck maywaether thread for no apparent reason, o wait it already did.....come on guys, pick on someone else, but you cant, cuz hes the best of this generation, point blank, Castillo didn't win that fight, he just came really close, just cuz he did better than everyone else doesn't mean he should be given the fight.

But to respond to the original post, yeah i tend to do that all the time, my mind kind of does it automatically, some guys are just the real deal and some are media darlings.

Ha I'm pro Floyd because he got a bad rap for the Manny negotiations but he should have been DQed vs Zab and Castillo was close those are just facts.

Getting dqed after getting hit in the nuts, then in the back of the head, and then choosing to remain calm and not to participate in a riot even though your family is being attacked and you were wronged, yeah he should've def got dqued

Ha so it's okay that your corner start a riot? Boxing has rules if your corner comes in the ring you are DQed, you want special treatment for Floyd

Maybe because before the call was made, yoel judah stepped into the ring and knocked roger upside the head, and then zab proceeded to join in the festivities, if anyone shouldve been dqued, it wasnt floyd

[Spicoli]

Bottom line is you cannot believe everything you read. A record is just a stat sheet with very little depth and perspective. You cannot take it at complete face value and rely on that to give you the entire picture. It is only the "official" end result by the politicos. As infested as boxing is with corruption, terrible decisions by judges being at the top, it is very much up to fans to keep a running tally of asterisks from fights we've watched. But there is a massive difference between debatable and out and out rob jobs. Mostly a record is misleading in literal results...a "knockout" or Dq etc. Not so much now but thrown fights also, dive jobs ruled kos. This can be why everytime we harp on ko records translating to a guy being a monsterous savage puncher it can be shallow. It doesn't mean he was leaving guys twitching on the canvas taking 10 counts. Who was the guy in the first place? Was he hit so much he just stayed on the stool, or just bagged it after making his quota of 2 rounds. You just have to keep perspective fight to fight. You cannot act like a conspiracy theorist at every close bout regardless of bias but never take a record 100 percent face value. There is something to be said for actually watching...remembering the fights!

I have zero doubt for example that Medina beat up Tapia. It happened. But its a "w" for Johhny. Omar Weis boxed the doors off Julio Diaz. Shultz same to Foreman. Zero doubt that Sergio Martinez KO'd Cintron and was rewarded with a "draw". Rafa Ruelas was not "ko'd" very early in career vs Gutierrez his trainer lost the count, Rafa was wide awake and not hurt. Then you have a Lewis vs Akinwande...to me that was a tko and I think of it as such. Humberto Soto was every bit a tko winner over a battered Lorenzo but has a DQ. Honestly, for each fan..the list goes on and on and on.

[bradlee180]

I'm not even sure when they started to always announce fighters' records at the beginning of the fight.

Up to the late 1960s, ring announcers would give the fighter's name, his weight, where he's from, and what color trunks, but his record wasn't announced.

Records were being announced in the 1970s during ring introductions, but not all the time at every boxing event.


EDIT:
Records weren't seen as that important, and neither was being undefeated.
As long as a guy fought with Heart and put on a Great entertaining fight, people would pay to watch him again even if he came out on the losing end.
It's why Sugar Ray Robinson and Jake LaMotta fought 6 times, even though Jake only won 1 of the fights. They put on exciting fights, and the people liked watching them fight each other.
With only 8 weight classes and only 1 Champ per class, and fighters having maybe 10 or 12 fights per year, naturally EVERY top fighter had losses...

[Britkid]

I'm not even sure when they started to always announce fighters' records at the beginning of the fight.

Up to the late 1960s, ring announcers would give the fighter's name, his weight, where he's from, and what color trunks, but his record wasn't announced.

Records were being announced in the 1970s during ring introductions, but not all the time at every boxing event.


EDIT:
Records weren't seen as that important, and neither was being undefeated.
As long as a guy fought with Heart and put on a Great entertaining fight, people would pay to watch him again even if he came out on the losing end.
It's why Sugar Ray Robinson and Jake LaMotta fought 6 times, even though Jake only won 1 of the fights. They put on exciting fights, and the people liked watching them fight each other.
With only 8 weight classes and only 1 Champ per class, and fighters having maybe 10 or 12 fights per year, naturally EVERY top fighter had losses...

I agree with everything but the last line...

Look back; with the exception of a brief period in the late 40s, there was never 'only' eight divisions with one world champ in each division.

[bzkfn]

Ha so it's okay that your corner start a riot? Boxing has rules if your corner comes in the ring you are DQed, you want special treatment for Floyd

@Onetime - You're only hating on Floyd because he's an American and everyone hates America.

See you can't be honest, I don't blindly defend American or black fighters but the garbage that I see from people who hug Euros against guys like Floyd, Danny, Wilder, B-hop, Devon and Quillin. GGG could start a riot and you would ride him, I don't do that.

Not true. If he fights Quillin, I'm right behind Kid Chocolate. I'm a big Quillin fan. I think GGG is good, but I'm not sold yet.

[Onetime]

Ha so it's okay that your corner start a riot? Boxing has rules if your corner comes in the ring you are DQed, you want special treatment for Floyd

@Onetime - You're only hating on Floyd because he's an American and everyone hates America.

See you can't be honest, I don't blindly defend American or black fighters but the garbage that I see from people who hug Euros against guys like Floyd, Danny, Wilder, B-hop, Devon and Quillin. GGG could start a riot and you would ride him, I don't do that.

Not true. If he fights Quillin, I'm right behind Kid Chocolate. I'm a big Quillin fan. I think GGG is good, but I'm not sold yet.

GGG beat Ouma he is clearly the best to ever step in the ring, the GGG fans are just the worse I've ever seen they make Manny fans seem rationale