Worst Decisions You Witnessed Live

Probably been done to death but there is a couple which spring to mind was Santa Cruz v Casamayor on the Cotto v Mosley undercard. I dont know if anyone has seen this but I havent got clue how Casa even got close to getting the nod. Horrendous decision!

Also in recently memory McDermott v Fury. Fight was quite easy to score and had it 97-93 McDeromott, How Terry O'Connor seen it 98-92 the other way only Flip knows. But I do think he was having flash backs seeing Johns dad in the cornor! Althought there was only one Judging the fight as opposed to 3.

Anymore?

kessler v froch

Jimmy Vincent vs David Barnes was absolutely the worst I have ever seen. At the time Barnes was seen as the new star in Warren's stable whereas Vincent was in there as the opponent but Vincent beat him so badly after about the 9th his corner were talking of pulling him out. Nobody could believe it when he got the nod.

I wouldn't say Kessler Froch was a bad decision, just a close one..

Frankie Gavin v Young Mutley

How it wasn't 3 lots of 120-108 I'll never know. A disgrace.

They probably fell asleep for a few rounds Union, what a borefest.

It was dreadful, but at least Gavin was throwing. Mutley just put the ear-muffs on and stood there.

Khan V McCloskey

Stopping the fight was one of the worst decisions in boxing history

Sheng

Only saved everyone from the inevitable 120-108 cards and 6 more rounds of boredom

And it says alot you probably mean that, what'a non-biased fan.... Those barrells must be almost worn through with the amount of scratching you have to do eh.

Williams vs that guy in Spain had some bizarre refereeing decisions

Take your pick of Ottke fights

Lewis v Holyfield I, quite possibly the biggest disgrace of a decision i've seen live

Williams-Airich was awful for the refereeing.

I had Fury beating Mcmuffin both times. Fury was doing most of the work - and Mcmuffin catching him with 2/3 clean shots. because Fury was meant to blast Mcmuffin out of there and was failing to do so - the crowd and commentary team started praising McDermott to the nines. An cooler head - I can see how Fury edged it. Fury by 2 points.

One one card Pierre Benoist's for Williams-Martinez, of 119-110 (so much so I've remembered his name).

Overall I'm not sure.

Scottrf wrote:One one card Pierre Benoist's for Williams-Martinez, of 119-110 (so much so I've remembered his name).

Overall I'm not sure.

Good pick.

Also along the lines of Martinez-being-shafted - what about the Cintron fight?

Martinez knocked him out first. Then took a draw? I could have cried.

Haye - Valuev

How anyone scored Haye the winner is beyond a joke.

Tom Dallas - Zak Page - What?

The last John Simpson fight - Simpson clearly won

Holyfield - Valuev - Holy beat him (far more convincingly than Haye)

Ray Close - Eubank - ?? Pitiful decision.

oxring wrote:

Scottrf wrote:One one card Pierre Benoist's for Williams-Martinez, of 119-110 (so much so I've remembered his name).

Overall I'm not sure.

Good pick.

Also along the lines of Martinez-being-shafted - what about the Cintron fight?

Martinez knocked him out first. Then took a draw? I could have cried.

Yes! If only for the fact it's the only time I can remember someone winning twice and losing the fight.

shenglong1983 wrote:Haye - Valuev

How anyone scored Haye the winner is beyond a joke.

Tom Dallas - Zak Page - What?

The last John Simpson fight - Simpson clearly won

Holyfield - Valuev - Holy beat him (far more convincingly than Haye)

Ray Close - Eubank - ?? Pitiful decision.

Jim Watt scored Valuev the winner so Haye must have won. Scarce can I remember a commentator who seems to pick every big fight wrong.

How anyone scored Haye the winner is beyond a joke.

Unlike most who thought he'd done enough

Can't lose a fight if you don't get hit twerp

oxring wrote:Jim Watt scored Valuev the winner so Haye must have won. Scarce can I remember a commentator who seems to pick every big fight wrong.

Dan Rafael has Berto winning the Ortiz fight

coxy0001 wrote:

How anyone scored Haye the winner is beyond a joke.

Unlike most who thought he'd done enough

Can't lose a fight if you don't get hit twerp

Well - some might say you do if they're the champ and you don't hit back...

But if Watt thought Valuev won - I didn't.

on which planet did haye lose to valuev?

eddyfightfan wrote:on which planet did haye lose to valuev?

With the exception of when the British fighter was knocked out - when did you ever score a world title fight against a British fighter?

Had Haye comfortably beating Valuev, was getting hitting with nothing but was landing enough each round to win them

The Martinez fights already mentioned are good shouts but for me Giampas scorecard for Chavez/Taylor takes some beating, have yet to speak to anyone who thought Taylor won less than 8/9 rounds going into the 12th.

rowley wrote:Jimmy Vincent vs David Barnes was absolutely the worst I have ever seen. At the time Barnes was seen as the new star in Warren's stable whereas Vincent was in there as the opponent but Vincent beat him so badly after about the 9th his corner were talking of pulling him out. Nobody could believe it when he got the nod.

Bobby Vanzie/Garham Earl on the undercard...Vanzie won by a mile that night and he was bloody well jobbed in the rematch as well.

I told his dad I thought as much a few years ago, he smiled and shook my hand.

Brodie/Jorrin was another

Haye v Valuev I think poser gig too much running to merit the win. Politically motivated.

KESSLER V FROCH
MCDERMOTT V FURY
MAIDANA V MORALES
BRODIE V JORIN

I wouldn't say Kessler Froch was a bad decision, just a close one..
................
I would, terrible verdict, you have to take the title, he never imo

No contest..

Ramirez-Whittaker...

120-108 Shutout that went the other way.

Steven_89 wrote:I wouldn't say Kessler Froch was a bad decision, just a close one..
................
I would, terrible verdict, you have to take the title, he never imo

No you don't.

Scottrf wrote:

Steven_89 wrote:I wouldn't say Kessler Froch was a bad decision, just a close one..
................
I would, terrible verdict, you have to take the title, he never imo

No you don't.

Kessler won because of the crowd it was a coin toss really I believe if the fight was in Nottingham it would have gone in Carls favour.

Scottrf wrote:

Steven_89 wrote:I wouldn't say Kessler Froch was a bad decision, just a close one..
................
I would, terrible verdict, you have to take the title, he never imo

No you don't.

Agreeing with you quite a lot Scott which is weird but as soon as the fight starts the belt is up for grabs and the winner is whoever does better under the scoring system

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Agreeing with you quite a lot Scott which is weird but as soon as the fight starts the belt is up for grabs and the winner is whoever does better under the scoring system

Absolutely.

Kessler won the fight in my opinion, can't remember exactly how I had it but I think 115-113. If that's the worst robbery you've seen or even close, count yourself lucky.

How can you equate froch-kessler to say the Jorrin-Brodie fight...

or ramirez-whittaker...or any ottke fight...

Scottrf wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Agreeing with you quite a lot Scott which is weird but as soon as the fight starts the belt is up for grabs and the winner is whoever does better under the scoring system

Absolutely.

Kessler won the fight in my opinion, can't remember exactly how I had it but I think 115-113. If that's the worst robbery you've seen or even close, count yourself lucky.

I'm a huge huge Froch fan but my bias aside thought Kessler did enough for the win and 115-113 sounds fair, Froch should have won the fight comfortably though

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/606/F17032879?thread=7464651&show=50

I had it 116- 113 actually.

1. Even. Kessler more aggressive, Froch landed more.
2. Kessler. Clear controlling ring, doing better work.
3. Kessler. Froch jabbing well but missing too often.
4. Froch. Landed big shots, good movement. Kessler started too late.
5. Froch. Imposed him self more, was a trip, had his foot behind Kessler as he backed up.
6. Kessler. Neither landed too many.
7. Kessler. In and out controlling range and landing more.
8. Kessler. His best round so far, had Froch hurt.
9. Kessler. Close but Froch looked slow, and Kessler's defense was good.
10. Froch. Kessler was wild.
11. Kessler. Landed the cleaner shots and was more accurate.
12. Froch. Only just, not surprised people can't agree on the last two rounds.

Were a lot of close rounds, so shouldn't be too surprised that people can't agree on the exact score. But a robbery is a fight where one man has clearly won more rounds and doesn't get the decision like Whitaker-Ramirez, not simply one you disagree with.

Zack Page- Tom Dallas
Holyfield- Valuev
Huck- Lebedev

Castillo-Mayweather was a shocking decision in my opinion, had it something ridiculous like 116-112 or 117-111 to Castillo first time I watched it

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Castillo-Mayweather was a shocking decision in my opinion, had it something ridiculous like 116-112 or 117-111 to Castillo first time I watched it

Beat me to the punch there, yeah I agree with that HOWEVER I think Floyd may have just edged it imo... though to have it that wide apart is a scandal.

Castillo was throwing more and landing far more in that fight, a clear decision

CALZAGHE V REID
Reid counters near enough everything he throws throughout, lands the bigger shots.

@Sheng
How you can say Valuev beat Haye is beyond me, i can't bare Haye he talks far too much but he clearly won that fight

Never thought I'd see Haye-Valuev on 'Best Performance' and 'Worst Decision' threads in the same day. It's not close to either.

No you don't.
..........................
You do, see Witter v Bradley, Froch done just as much as him, he should of kept the title, above all shouldn't of had to go to a dead nation in Boxing terms to defend HIS TITLE

Steven_89 wrote:CALZAGHE V REID
Reid counters near enough everything he throws throughout, lands the bigger shots

You quote Calzaghe Reid after saying Froch was robbed?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sport/279246.stm

The key quote - Reid said: "I can't argue with the decision. Joe was the better boxer on the night and I knew I could not catch him for speed."

Absolute robbery that one. Where the defeated boxer admitted defeat.

Steven_89 wrote:No you don't.
..........................
You do, see Witter v Bradley, Froch done just as much as him, he should of kept the title, above all shouldn't of had to go to a dead nation in Boxing terms to defend HIS TITLE

Quote me a rule book, they are all available online.

rowley wrote:Jimmy Vincent vs David Barnes was absolutely the worst I have ever seen. At the time Barnes was seen as the new star in Warren's stable whereas Vincent was in there as the opponent but Vincent beat him so badly after about the 9th his corner were talking of pulling him out. Nobody could believe it when he got the nod.

Terrible decision, great fight. Vincent went on to have a few fights in the spotlight after and was disappointed when he pulled out at late notice on a Alex Arthur undercard, was a shame to see him disappear so quickly but i'm sure the Barnes fight was at the end of a hard career. A house decision if ever there was one.

Quote me a rule book, they are all available online.
....................
So are personalities, buy one.

What happens in unification fights?

Steven_89 wrote:Quote me a rule book, they are all available online.
....................
So are personalities, buy one.

I'll take that as an 'amusing' surrender, but don't make the same mistake again.

oxring wrote:

eddyfightfan wrote:on which planet did haye lose to valuev?

With the exception of when the British fighter was knocked out - when did you ever score a world title fight against a British fighter?

probably hatton vs alverez, i have to say i do try and look at the fight from a unbias point of view, and probably am guilty of bias as i imagine most people are. however, for me haye fought the perfect fight against the big man, taking into account he broke his hand early on in the fight, he hit and moved without getting caught all night. rocked him in the 11th or 12th and never at any point did he look worried or in danger. he controlled the fight and out smarted valuev.

the reason i gave kessler v froch as a example of worst decesions ever was the fact it was scored 117-111 by one judge and 116-112 by another. the last judge gave it 115-113 which i can live with, although fought at a neutral venue i still would say froch gets the nod. maybe via split decesion because it was close, but given the ref didn't give a knockdown i honestly feel he should have won that night.

Humberto Soto got robbed by Victor Cortez in one of the most bizarre decisions I have ever seen.

Steven_89 wrote:No you don't.
..........................
You do, see Witter v Bradley, Froch done just as much as him, he should of kept the title, above all shouldn't of had to go to a dead nation in Boxing terms to defend HIS TITLE

Are you Froch's mum in disguise?

Froch signed the contract! He knew he would have to travel at some stage in the super 6. Let him have the little gift against Dirrell.

Anyway - you thought that Haye beat Valuev.

Yet you're saying you have to "take" the champion's belt. Haye hardly "took" the belt there, did he?

I think Trussman got there first, but Whitaker-Ramirez was an absolute farce. I had it 118-110 to Sweet Pea. The Chavez fight a few years later was a joke, too, and far more harmful to Whitaker's career overall. Again, I had Whitaker winning clearly, 116-112.

Anyone else seen the first Basilio-Saxton fight? Carmen got shafted badly, absolutely awful decision. Come to think of it, Saxton got a gift against Gavilan, too - the wonders of being managed by Blinkey Palermo, eh!?

Woodhall-Catley was a bad one in recent times.