Edited reality in boxing records.

[Vendettos]

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?

[Onetime]

I just accept it, to many people view robberies through a bias, Manny fans like to call Bradley a robbery than deny JMM was robbed. Claiming robbery has become so rampant that I don't participate.

[Master]

You have to go by the record otherwise you are open to different peoples interpretation and that could be based on popularity than actually winning fights. Ottke should have lost a couple but he remain undefeated but we all know he was crap and Joe would have battered him.

[bradlee180]

Edited Reality? Ok, let's give 'er a shot!

Every real boxing fan knows the undefeated Mayweather lost to Castillo the 1st fight in 2002.

The Olympic Bronze medalist at featherweight, Mayweather also lost 6 times as an amateur.
(The incomparable Sugar Ray Robinson went undefeated as an amateur 85-0, 69 KOs, and as a pro went to 40-0 before taking his 1st loss ever (Jake LaMotta). Avenges the loss 3 weeks later and goes 91 more fights undefeated before losing again.)

And Mayweather should have been disqualified in the Judah fight when crackhead uncle roger entered the ring and attacked over Judah's dirty tactics. That was bull$#!t that the incompetent ref richard steele allowed the boxing match to resume after the brawl.
For judah's lowblow and rabbit punch, the ref was about to take points away, but any cornermans' infraction of setting foot in the ring during the rd (let alone fighting the fighter), that's an automatic DQ under the rules of boxing, yet the fight resumed.

That's 2 losses as a pro.

Thirdly, I think De La Hoya won the fight with Mayweather on effective aggression and bodywork, but I can see debating that one as it was a snoozefest split-decision with one guy refusing to do what a pro fighter is paid to do: take out the other guy.

[Onetime]

Edited Reality? Ok, let's give 'er a shot!

Every real boxing fan knows the undefeated Mayweather lost to Castillo the 1st fight in 2002.

The Olympic Bronze medalist at featherweight, Mayweather also lost 6 times as an amateur.
(The incomparable Sugar Ray Robinson went undefeated as an amateur 85-0, 69 KOs, and as a pro went to 40-0 before taking his 1st loss ever (Jake LaMotta). Avenges the loss 3 weeks later and goes 91 more fights undefeated before losing again.)

And Mayweather should have been disqualified in the Judah fight when crackhead uncle roger entered the ring and attacked over Judah's dirty tactics. That was bull$#!t that the incompetent ref richard steele allowed the boxing match to resume after the brawl.
For judah's lowblow and rabbit punch, the ref was about to take points away, but any cornermans' infraction of setting foot in the ring during the rd (let alone fighting the fighter), that's an automatic DQ under the rules of boxing, yet the fight resumed.

That's 2 losses as a pro.

Thirdly, I think De La Hoya won the fight with Mayweather on effective aggression and bodywork, but I can see debating that one as it was a snoozefest split-decision with one guy refusing to do what a pro fighter is paid to do: take out the other guy.

I've seen refs threaten to DQ guys cause his corner made a mistake and came in while they were doing the count for Floyd not to be DQed was an embarrassment.

[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.

[Silkeyjoe]

Edited Reality? Ok, let's give 'er a shot!

Every real boxing fan knows the undefeated Mayweather lost to Castillo the 1st fight in 2002.

The Olympic Bronze medalist at featherweight, Mayweather also lost 6 times as an amateur.
(The incomparable Sugar Ray Robinson went undefeated as an amateur 85-0, 69 KOs, and as a pro went to 40-0 before taking his 1st loss ever (Jake LaMotta). Avenges the loss 3 weeks later and goes 91 more fights undefeated before losing again.)

And Mayweather should have been disqualified in the Judah fight when crackhead uncle roger entered the ring and attacked over Judah's dirty tactics. That was bull$#!t that the incompetent ref richard steele allowed the boxing match to resume after the brawl.
For judah's lowblow and rabbit punch, the ref was about to take points away, but any cornermans' infraction of setting foot in the ring during the rd (let alone fighting the fighter), that's an automatic DQ under the rules of boxing, yet the fight resumed.

That's 2 losses as a pro.

Thirdly, I think De La Hoya won the fight with Mayweather on effective aggression and bodywork, but I can see debating that one as it was a snoozefest split-decision with one guy refusing to do what a pro fighter is paid to do: take out the other guy.

I've seen refs threaten to DQ guys cause his corner made a mistake and came in while they were doing the count for Floyd not to be DQed was an embarrassment.

Remember Molinas DQ against Kirkland for this? Now that was embarrassing!

[Vendettos]

Edited Reality? Ok, let's give 'er a shot!

Every real boxing fan knows the undefeated Mayweather lost to Castillo the 1st fight in 2002.

The Olympic Bronze medalist at featherweight, Mayweather also lost 6 times as an amateur.
(The incomparable Sugar Ray Robinson went undefeated as an amateur 85-0, 69 KOs, and as a pro went to 40-0 before taking his 1st loss ever (Jake LaMotta). Avenges the loss 3 weeks later and goes 91 more fights undefeated before losing again.)

And Mayweather should have been disqualified in the Judah fight when crackhead uncle roger entered the ring and attacked over Judah's dirty tactics. That was bull$#!t that the incompetent ref richard steele allowed the boxing match to resume after the brawl.
For judah's lowblow and rabbit punch, the ref was about to take points away, but any cornermans' infraction of setting foot in the ring during the rd (let alone fighting the fighter), that's an automatic DQ under the rules of boxing, yet the fight resumed.

That's 2 losses as a pro.

Thirdly, I think De La Hoya won the fight with Mayweather on effective aggression and bodywork, but I can see debating that one as it was a snoozefest split-decision with one guy refusing to do what a pro fighter is paid to do: take out the other guy.

See that's not what I'm talking about though.

Mayweather v Castillo, it was VERY close so you can't moan when Mayweather gets the decision. The De La Hoya fight was just as close.

Im talk about pure robbery, Tyson Fury clearly lost to McDermott.
Broner CLEARLY lost to Quintero.

[Onetime]

Edited Reality? Ok, let's give 'er a shot!

Every real boxing fan knows the undefeated Mayweather lost to Castillo the 1st fight in 2002.

The Olympic Bronze medalist at featherweight, Mayweather also lost 6 times as an amateur.
(The incomparable Sugar Ray Robinson went undefeated as an amateur 85-0, 69 KOs, and as a pro went to 40-0 before taking his 1st loss ever (Jake LaMotta). Avenges the loss 3 weeks later and goes 91 more fights undefeated before losing again.)

And Mayweather should have been disqualified in the Judah fight when crackhead uncle roger entered the ring and attacked over Judah's dirty tactics. That was bull$#!t that the incompetent ref richard steele allowed the boxing match to resume after the brawl.
For judah's lowblow and rabbit punch, the ref was about to take points away, but any cornermans' infraction of setting foot in the ring during the rd (let alone fighting the fighter), that's an automatic DQ under the rules of boxing, yet the fight resumed.

That's 2 losses as a pro.

Thirdly, I think De La Hoya won the fight with Mayweather on effective aggression and bodywork, but I can see debating that one as it was a snoozefest split-decision with one guy refusing to do what a pro fighter is paid to do: take out the other guy.

See that's not what I'm talking about though.

Mayweather v Castillo, it was VERY close so you can't moan when Mayweather gets the decision. The De La Hoya fight was just as close.

Im talk about pure robbery, Tyson Fury clearly lost to McDermott.
Broner CLEARLY lost to Quintero.

It still will become a popularity contest I had JMM-Manny 3 8-4 and I see people on sites claim it was close when if you look at it pretty much every respectable writer had JMM way ahead. Than I see Lucas-Devon treated like a huge robbery it was on a list as the 6th biggest robbery in boxing history on one video I saw, boxing fans aren't honest enough for real scores.

[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]

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

[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

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

o right soz, we now have gold champs, silver champs, interim belt holders, ring magazine champs, champs in recess, and titlists

that clears things up for me

but if you mean he wasnt the number one in the division then yes youre right, taking that approach tho you would have to go back through the last 30 years and strip a lot of very good world champions of their belts

[scribbs]

o right soz, we now have gold champs, silver champs, interim belt holders, ring magazine champs, champs in recess, and titlists

that clears things up for me

but if you mean he wasnt the number one in the division then yes youre right, taking that approach tho you would have to go back through the last 30 years and strip a lot of very good world champions of their belts

Not really that way. Throughout history including the old days when there was a smaller number of divisions it could still be murky. We have numerous belts & sometimes its a joke to distinguish who is the man & sometimes its obvious despite the numerous titlists on offer.

Ley me put it this way, Larry Homes was rightly (imo) called the heavy champ until beaten(?) by Spinks. You could argue that Witherspoon & Thomas were the top fighters in division when they held the WBC title but they never won title off of Holmes (some may have Tim winning when he challenged Larry). Looking back they were titlists holding down a strap but not the de facto crown of champion.

Guaranteed many years are blurry for a lot of divsions with too many titlists with no one stranding out, which is unfortunate but there are some instances when boxing fans know who is the man.

Now, regarding Haye who I like but has started being a dick. He won a title of Valuev who gained the title by beating Ruiz after they stripped the title of Chagaev who would lose to Wlad who with the exception of WBC title has unified the major belts, so (imo), is the man although there is debate in some quarters in regards to Vitali having a stake. So Haye won a title but many do but was not a champ (pedantic way to deal with it but it's how I make sense even if others don't agree).

I take my own view on boxing which is not the norm, so I put an asterisk on certain bouts but still accept the situation also. Its a muddled methodology but it works for me. You seem to have different viewpoint which I used to go by but found to be wearisome eventually, but hey - each to his own.

[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.