How I define a robbery

XThe GreatestX

XThe GreatestX

Gold Belt
@Gold
Joined
Jul 22, 2012
Messages
17,216
Reaction score
6,078
Lot of robbery talk thrown around here... So i'd like to give my definition of what I think of robbery is and see if others agree.

A robbery in a 12 round fight is when you think one fighter CLEARLY won 9 rounds...

ex. I thought Evander Holyfield clearly won 9 rounds against Valuev and should have won the heavyweight championship of the world in his late 40's. I honest to god have no idea what the judges were watching as Valuev did NOTHING in that fight.

another ex. I thought Oscar De La Hoya clearly won 9 rounds against Tito Trinidad and made him look pretty ridiculous in what was one of the more embarrassing boxing lessons I have ever seen in a big fight. Yet the decision went to Tito.

A robbery in a 15 round fight is when you think one fighter CLEARLY won 11 rounds. Just imo for those who like watching older fights like myself.

And so. That is why I don't consider Fury-Wilder to be a robbery. I had it on fight night 9-3 Fury. The problem was there were quite a few rounds that could have gone either way+ two KD's for Wilder. Do I think Wilder won? No fucking way. That scorecard for him was lunacy, particularly having him sweep the first four. But in no way was a draw out of the question.
 
Fury won nine rounds clearly in my mind.

Wilder was reckless and out boxed for the majority of the fight.
 
Fury was winning rounds in which he'd land one nice combination, but for the rest of the round, he'd be on the backfoot, moving, barely landing anything, making Wilder look silly but Wilder would still be the one pressing forward and landing jabs to Fury's body. There were definitely quite a few close rounds if you score what the fighters are actually landing and connecting with, which is the right way to do it, rather than just how well one guy moves or by how wide one guy misses his power punches. The aim in professional boxing is to damage your opponent with punches.

Harold Lederman is right here in saying that you score 99% for clean punching. Landing punches is what matters.

 
Minowafanatic said:
Fury was winning rounds in which he'd land one nice combination, but for the rest of the round, he'd be on the backfoot, moving, barely landing anything, making Wilder look silly but Wilder would still be the one pressing forward and landing jabs to Fury's body. There were definitely quite a few close rounds if you score what the fighters are actually landing and connecting with, which is the right way to do it, rather than just how well one guy moves or by how wide one guy misses his power punches. The aim in professional boxing is to damage your opponent with punches.

Harold Lederman is right here in saying that you score 99% for clean punching. Landing punches is what matters.

Click to expand...

sooo...

I don't think thats the actual scoring criteria though.
 
Soo. Just in case there is some confusion. The actual scoring criteria is

clean effective punching
defense
effective aggression
ring generalship.

each one equally
 
In the very specific case of Wilder vs Fury, in quite a few rounds with little action Fury was definitely ahead in ring generalship and defense, but arguably below Wilder in effective agression and clean effective landing. The first few rounds and rounds 6 and 8 are rather close and Wilder could certainly be granted 3 of them - hence a draw - according to the scoring criteria. Fury did put on a better show, but there is no criteria for this. Giving him 9 rounds out of the 10 in which he didn't get floored is far fetched, hence according to the OP this fight was not a robbery.
 
its actually bizarre lederman scores fights like that when there is an actual scoring criteria you are suppose to use
 
XThe GreatestX said:
Lot of robbery talk thrown around here... So i'd like to give my definition of what I think of robbery is and see if others agree.

A robbery in a 12 round fight is when you think one fighter CLEARLY won 9 rounds...

ex. I thought Evander Holyfield clearly won 9 rounds against Valuev and should have won the heavyweight championship of the world in his late 40's. I honest to god have no idea what the judges were watching as Valuev did NOTHING in that fight.

another ex. I thought Oscar De La Hoya clearly won 9 rounds against Tito Trinidad and made him look pretty ridiculous in what was one of the more embarrassing boxing lessons I have ever seen in a big fight. Yet the decision went to Tito.

A robbery in a 15 round fight is when you think one fighter CLEARLY won 11 rounds. Just imo for those who like watching older fights like myself.

And so. That is why I don't consider Fury-Wilder to be a robbery. I had it on fight night 9-3 Fury. The problem was there were quite a few rounds that could have gone either way+ two KD's for Wilder. Do I think Wilder won? No fucking way. That scorecard for him was lunacy, particularly having him sweep the first four. But in no way was a draw out of the question.
Click to expand...

The "robbery" in the fury fight does not rise from the end result quite like you wrote but how Rochino ended there. He scored the first 4 rounds for Wilder and would have had a Wilder win even without the knockdowns. It is a clear pattern of corrupted scoring. He had an agenda to get Wilder ahead.

Most people dont cry out against the end result but him. Lets call it as it is. A corrupt judge paid to guarantee one scoring vote. No other way around.
 
XThe GreatestX said:
Soo. Just in case there is some confusion. The actual scoring criteria is

clean effective punching
defense
effective aggression
ring generalship.

each one equally
Click to expand...
They are never weighted equally though. A big punch hurting your opponent can win you a round, and that's effective punching. If you end the round slipping all the shots from a combination, and making your opponent silly, does that cancel out the big punch that landed, or is that going to win you a round? That's defense. Have you ever heard "he just slipped every punch in that combination, and it just stole him the round"?. Or how about a fighter dances around the other for three minutes, doesn't throw a single punch, but nothing lands clean on him and he's dictating the pace with his footwork, so he's up on ring generalship and defense. He'd still lose the round unequivocally.

Here's Steve Weisfeld explaining it:
https://www.premierboxingchampions....ge-steve-weisfeld-offers-tips-how-score-fight

"A lot of times fans hear that judges focus on four categories: clean punches, effective aggressiveness, defense and ring generalship," Weisfeld said. "But based upon my own experience, my conversations with other judges and seminars conducted by top judges, judges really focus on one category, and that's clean punches.

Clean punches: To me, clean punches are the most important aspect, and the other factors are really tied to that. Take the phrase, "effective aggressiveness." How is a boxer effective? He's effective by landing clean punches. How about "defense?" A boxer shows great defense by not getting hit with clean punches. And, finally, the term "ring generalship." A boxer uses the ring to put himself in a position to land clean punches.

So let's focus on the phrase "clean punches." It may not be initially apparent, but there are various elements included within that phrase. First, there's the number of punches. The boxer who lands more punches generally wins. However, harder punches count more than lighter punches.

Now, there's no mathematical formula that equates the number of punches with the hardness of the punch. The judge has to weigh the two based on his experience. But more important than the number of punches or the hardness of the punch is the effect of the punch. For example, a seemingly lighter punch that causes a boxer to stagger is scored higher than a seemingly harder punch that has no effect."
 
i haven't seen the fight yet but if anyone had asked me beforehand if they should bet on it, i would have said it's a horrible one to bet on. Wilder has no real technical ability and fury has had the mental/physical issues. I recall a few years ago, after the delahoya quartey fight, there was some newscaster, can't remember his name but he was reiterating over and over again how a champion shouldn't lose a fight in which he's had two knockdowns and then he did something interesting, he asked anyone to name one fight where that was the case, I couldn't think of one. Not that I agreed with that guy but it's interesting that i couldn't think of one single fight that happened in. Robbery gets overused and I tend to think that if you want to take it out of the judges hands, you should knock your man out. Anything less has a good chance of ending ambiguously. We know the champ usually gets more than a little benefit of the doubt and we know that decisions usually help the guy on who's soil the fights on. I think Fury has spoken well on these subjects, I don't know if it was a robbery, but I do know that it's good for boxing. The next time even more people are going to want to watch and so the winner is boxing. so i guess us as fans should be happy for our sport.
 
To my mind a robbery is, and is only, when you know someone has earned something and then another person takes that thing.

I don't care if it's a one-round difference. If it's very clear that the one round difference should stand, then the fight going to the other person is, by definition, a robbery.

Tyson Fury won the majority of rounds. His round lead was by a wide enough margin that the 2 knockdowns should not have swayed the result. So I see it as a robbery based on my definition of the word. I'm not sure why there'd be a different definition. If someone is clearly mine and you take it... even if it's a tic-tac.... it's a robbery.

What the 115-111 Wilder judge did was an absolute robbery. I am willing to concede that the 113-113 judge saw something I didn't. Although I think his score is a stretch as well.
 
Fury was robbed and your first two posts say the same...
We can glitz it up but I think anyone but wilder and his family know fury got robbed.
 
NO. A robbery is anytime my guy didn't win. Even if i had him winning by 1 point. Draws or a 1 point win for the other guy is always a robbery. Also, even if my guy won i might still call it a robbery if it wasn't a unanimous decision with all 3 judges scoring it exactly the same of course.
 
Will rewatch soon and scoring the bout live loosely, i had wilder sealing it with the knockdown. Robbery... i thought wilder took it but need to rewatch
 
The Adder said:
NO. A robbery is anytime my guy didn't win. Even if i had him winning by 1 point. Draws or a 1 point win for the other guy is always a robbery. Also, even if my guy won i might still call it a robbery if it wasn't a unanimous decision with all 3 judges scoring it exactly the same of course.
Click to expand...
indeed
 
Based on your criteria, Fury got robbed. Wilder only won rounds 2, 9 and 12. If you want to be super generous and give him the next closest round he lost then he would have won 2, 7, 9 and 12 and still lost by 2 points. Fury got robbed.
 
Imo Tyson won 9 rounds.

I think the traditional definition is more, the other guy got the nod tho. But this does feel like a massive robbery.
 
NoBiasJustMMA said:
Based on your criteria, Fury got robbed. Wilder only won rounds 2, 9 and 12. If you want to be super generous and give him the next closest round he lost then he would have won 2, 7, 9 and 12 and still lost by 2 points. Fury got robbed.
Click to expand...
I scored exactly the same
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,684
Messages
55,434,524
Members
174,775
Latest member
kilgorevontrouty

Share this page

Back
Top