Fights were a guy had the right gameplan/did the right things but still lost clearly

[smash_and_cash]

What are some fights where a guy clearly lost despite doing everything "right". You often hear armchair boxers saying "oh he shouldve let his hands go" or "he shouldve used more head movement". Are there fights where you couldnt really give armchair advice to the losing guy?

[QueensburyRules]

- - AJ vs Usyk recently. AJ had his mug busting up ready to fall to pieces in the championship rounds when Usyk popped his open eye.

In case U ain't noticed, there been a spate of Brits, ie Sanders and Dubois who suffered serious orbital fractures last year that caused a panic in AJ corner when he was temporarily blind. He was fine as it turned out, but we'll see in the rematch where he's at now.

[LeOoze]

Floyd Mayweather vs Jesus Chavez / Maidana I
James Toney vs Jirov
Corrales vs Castillo
Pernell Whitaker vs Azumah Nelson / Buddy McGirt
Erik Morales vs In Jin Chi

all come to mind

[The Old LefHook]

Wilder must have had the right game plan against Fury, because he did not know another one to implement. He made the right choice because another plan would have been full of new ideas and techniques he could not learn fast enough. Therefore he fought with the best plan for himself, but it was just not good enough. He couldn't even implement the plan he did have. Another plan might have been better, but other plans were essentially unavailable to him because of his limited technique and ring IQ.

[edgarg]

What are some fights where a guy clearly lost despite doing everything "right". You often hear armchair boxers saying "oh he shouldve let his hands go" or "he shouldve used more head movement". Are there fights where you couldnt really give armchair advice to the losing guy?

Weeel...the one I like BEST is the "fight" in which 15 year old Mike Tyson is "fighting" Joe Cortez. Joe prances out, hande is proper position and BOOM, 8 seconds and he's flat on his back in dreamland and they're calling for the oxygen..

I originally though it was the referee that we all love to hate, "i'm fair but I'm firm", but although the guy actually looks very like him, it was a different Joe Cortez.

The ref..his "hair" was fair....maybe... but we never saw it, and his "mind" was firm, ...but we never saw that either.

[Willie Pep 229]

I don't get this question. Is he just asking who fought the good fight, but lost?

There are many.

Herans in Leonard I - Don't think Tommy could have fought any better than he did that night. Just wasn't his night; the other guy was pretty good too.

I think a more interesting question is the one the OP poo poos, what fighters, when their big night came, froze up and "didn't let their hands go."

Off the top of my head, Hurricane Carter (Giardello); Virgil Hill (Hearns); Hagler (Leonard).

[QueensburyRules]

I don't get this question. Is he just asking who fought the good fight, but lost?

There are many.

Herans in Leonard I - Don't think Tommy could have fought any better than he did that night. Just wasn't his night; the other guy was pretty good too.

I think a more interesting question is the one the OP poo poos, what fighters, when their big night came, froze up and "didn't let their hands go."

Off the top of my head, Hurricane Carter (Giardello); Virgil Hill (Hearns); Hagler (Leonard).

- - Ali vs Young and Lyle save he won those fights ultimately with a piffle upsurge enhanced by the house referee.

[Willie Pep 229]

- - Ali vs Young and Lyle save he won those fights ultimately with a piffle upsurge enhanced by the house referee.

Yea even when he wasn't champion he was treated by the judges as if he was.

You wanted a decision over Ali you had to beat him clearly (Norton I). They just weren't giving close decisions to the other guy, e.g. the above mentioned along with Norton III, all could have gone the other way, but not against the 'Greatest.'

Too much money on the table to throw away a cash cow like Ali on a close fight. And all the above mentioned were close fights. Close enough that with a stroke of a pen, they could keep the dream ($$$$) alive.

This is prize fighting, not some silly sport concerned with silly things like 'fairness.'

Prize Fighting = $$$$$

You want the close decisions to go your way? Put asses in the seats or take it out of the judges' hands.

Norton, Lyle, Young didn't have enough to do either, so they were put aside.

Tough game! Never claimed to be anything but.

[The Old LefHook]

Yea even when he wasn't champion he was treated by the judges as if he was.

You wanted a decision over Ali you had to beat him clearly (Norton I). They just weren't giving close decisions to the other guy, e.g. the above mentioned along with Norton III, all could have gone the other way, but not against the 'Greatest.'

Too much money on the table to throw away a cash cow like Ali on a close fight. And all the above mentioned were close fights. Close enough that with a stroke of a pen, they could keep the dream ($$$$) alive.

This is prize fighting, not some silly sport concerned with silly things like 'fairness.'

Prize Fighting = $$$$$

You want the close decisions to go your way? Put asses in the seats or take it out of the judges' hands.

Norton, Lyle, Young didn't have enough to do either, so they were put aside.

Tough game! Never claimed to be anything but.

I guess you are claiming close fights of Clay were fixed. All referees plus the the promoters were in on it. Your idea sounds great until it is examined. The referees gave him the fights so the promoters could get rich. Where did you get such garbage. Queensbree is the idiot around here. Do not try to unseat him.

[Willie Pep 229]

I guess you are claiming close fights of Clay were fixed. All referees plus the the promoters were in on it. Your idea sounds great to halfwits, until it is examined. The referees gave him the fights so the promoters could get rich. Where did you get such garbage. Queensbree is the idiot around here. Do not try to unseat him.

Judges not referees!

Judges know where their bread is buttered.

Deliever and there is more work.

Not every 'shaping' of a fight is a 'fix.' - but if you speak in such hyperbole not only do you get to discredit without substance, but also get to jump right to the word 'conspiracy.'

When you throw those two words around loosely you can, at least in your own mind, debunk any argument you might disagree with.

Maybe we need a 'Godwin's Rule' for using the word 'fix' in prize fighting. Call it 'reverse tin foil hat thinking.'

Or better, try a little nuance, reality just might come in a little clearer.

Even better yet try looking a little deeper into Kid Gavilan's career. From court testimony we know that for the first Bratton fight in 1951 the IBC made it clear to the judges that if Gavilan was still on his feet at the end of 15 the title was to be his.

Gavilan's people were connected and were kicking back $.

But four years later, aftering wearing out his welcome with too many TV appearances and unexciting decision wins, the IBC flipped the rules around.

In 1954 it was Saxton, who, if still on his feet after 15 rounds, was to get the decision.

They say Kid Gavilan ran to the locker room after the decision and literally cried, never understanding that he had both gained and was robbed by the same interference.

You need a better understanding of the power of promoters over judges on close decision fights.

We didn't invent the term 'house corner' because they were writing a Hollywood script. No, they coined the term because the nuance was recognizable and at times is even confirmed when it came spilling out in court hearings.

You seriously believe that promoters and broadcasters don't influence decisions?