Anyone who throws Pacquiao-Marquez in there does NOT know the meaning of a close fight. A robbery is a fight where the grand majority of objective viewers have it wide for a particular fighter, but the result is a wide win for the other. People throw the term "robbery" around so much that it doesn't mean anything anymore.
Every single time we have a close fight, there's ALWAYS someone who utters that word.
A robbery would've been something like Oscar winning more than 2 rounds (in the best case scenario for him) had he made it to the final bell against Pacquiao. In a sport where there is still a degree of subjectivity in the criteria that's used for scoring in professional ranks, there is bound to be mistakes.
This begs the question: Why were people crucifying the overhaul for Olympic boxing scoring (where they count total punches) and whoever scores the most punches wins the fight? It's quick, it's indisputable...
Boxing is a sport but there is so much subjectivity that it keeps it from being taken as serious as other sports. It's a quasi-spectacle.
Has anyone here ever had one of those embarrassing nights when you invite people to catch a fight, and then there's that ONE individual who says, "Boxing is dead. Boxing is corrupt." And then the main event turns out to be a dull fight with iffy scores...and then that same individual who's instigating the "MMA vs Boxing" discussion goes, "See? This is why boxing sucks! I told you all!"
In lieu of this, you can only bury your head and be angry for boxing for being what it is. At this point, it's most likely an acquired taste. I have not met a single person here in the states who says they watch boxing or knows any fighter not named Mayweather or Pacquiao. :/
Every single time we have a close fight, there's ALWAYS someone who utters that word.
A robbery would've been something like Oscar winning more than 2 rounds (in the best case scenario for him) had he made it to the final bell against Pacquiao. In a sport where there is still a degree of subjectivity in the criteria that's used for scoring in professional ranks, there is bound to be mistakes.
This begs the question: Why were people crucifying the overhaul for Olympic boxing scoring (where they count total punches) and whoever scores the most punches wins the fight? It's quick, it's indisputable...
Boxing is a sport but there is so much subjectivity that it keeps it from being taken as serious as other sports. It's a quasi-spectacle.
Has anyone here ever had one of those embarrassing nights when you invite people to catch a fight, and then there's that ONE individual who says, "Boxing is dead. Boxing is corrupt." And then the main event turns out to be a dull fight with iffy scores...and then that same individual who's instigating the "MMA vs Boxing" discussion goes, "See? This is why boxing sucks! I told you all!"
In lieu of this, you can only bury your head and be angry for boxing for being what it is. At this point, it's most likely an acquired taste. I have not met a single person here in the states who says they watch boxing or knows any fighter not named Mayweather or Pacquiao. :/
Comment