"And the WINNER IS.....The Loser?!" Do Moral Victories Really Exist!

Evening All,
Many is the time that I have read on this site words along the lines of, "Oh, he maybe lost the verdict,but such and such fighter was the REAL winner, as everyone understands". Then there is usually a response such as, "Well ,the record books will not add a postscript to this result!".
I am thinking mainly of the results to Calzaghe/Hopkins, Vitali Klitschsko/ Lennox Lewis and also Ray Leonard v Hagler. Plus ,bouts resulting in Draws are often criticised by the masses,obvious example Pascal v Hopkins.No doubt that the first fight was a lousy result.So judges can,and clearly will, get it wrong...
But is there EVER a case for disregarding the "real" result?
I understand that much of the time, boxing is subjective.For example, I thought Groves beat De Gale but have sympathy for those who believe DeGale should have gotten the nod.
I must say however that I have never had much sympathy for this "Real Winner" take on things:I find it woolly and not only that, I believe that as a fan you also have to play by the rules and accept the decision.However, the subject of contentious victories just keeps coming back, even Bugner v Cooper still gets talked about with passion.
With the recent Morales display against Maidana, it does seem sad somehow that a fighter so spirited and inspiring leaves the ring with nothing but a swollen eye and a L" on the record.However, it's a cruel old game,and this is the nearest that I get to wishing that the record books actually bloomin did add an asterisk to the result.
I appreciate that a lot of guyts disagree,even clever-clogs like the Perfessor gave a badly beaten ,defeated fighter the noble tag of " winner in the eyes of the public."! Where do you stand?Are the rules just that, or does a prize-fight more often than not leave more than a residue of justified ambiguity?

a loss is a loss and a win a win, byrd won vitali due to a sholder injury, but even that- is byrd meant to be at fault for vitali suffering an injury? i dont think so.

Depends on the scenario. Morales left the ring with that shiner and the 'L', but most people didn't even think he'd leave the ring on his feet. Shannon Briggs and Margarito both went the distance at the expense of keeping their facial bones in the same places they'd been twelve rounds earlier. They don't get the same kind of credit as Morales does though.

Unless a fighter loses in a manner that's 'less badly' than they're expected to, all that matters is that they lost. Sometimes a good performance can open a few doors, but usually it's business as usual and they're old hat.

Whitaker was very much a moral winner over Chavez back in the day; as was Lewis over Holyfield.

Neither of those two fights were anywhere near draws.

Difference there though Sam is that no-one technically lost in those bouts.

Yes I know, just saying.

But we all have eyes mate!

The official terminology is 'Event Win'.

A good event example by Baltimora.

Maidana won the fight, Morales won the event.
Lewis won the fight, Vitali won the event. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWKROioRYfQ#t=0m06s

What I mean is that in terms of future opportunities a guy coming off a draw should have better opportunities than a guy coming off a loss, regardless of what the result SHOULD have been.

Some others:

Martinez EVT8 & EVT12 Cintron
Taylor EVT12 Chavez
Whitaker EVT12 Ramirez
Solis EVT1 Vitali

Solis has better future opportunities
than Vitali?

Don't reckon so mate!

Event wins don't need better future opportunities. He was winning the fight and got injured, it's an event win. It's indisputable.

How? He got absolutely slated in the press afterwards.

http://www.eastsideboxing.com/forum/showthread.php?t=297513

Perhaps they should make "Event Win" a special thing ,as voted for by selected pundits, that way fighters like Taylor can be properly canonised.After all ,the Football World Cup has The Golden Boot, I believe, for the player who scored the most,and in British Lions rugby tours they have a Player of The Tournament.
What with the largely word-of-mouth"World Pound For Pound" title, and The Ring belts, perhaps there is more room in the sport for a new decoration.
Or does this sound like one of Steffan's ideas?

No such thing as a moral winner..record books have the winners and losers written in them and people forget events years later...

Not sure how Hagler was a moral winner as most think Leonard won anyway.....and whilst vitali was a point up on my card the win wasn't cut and dried by any means..

So perverse examples there for sure.....

not like..................

Brodie vs Jorrin or Whittaker-Ramirez/ Holmes-Spinks 2...

If you get shafted on the cards then in many ways you can win a moral victory. Hearns-Leonard II for example. Technically neither won the fight but the overwhelming majority of people see it as Hearns fight and an unofficial win for him.

Leonard-Hearns was closer than Barkley-Duran......

I had Hearns by one point..hardly a travesty.

As in you thought Barkley won I presume?

Roy Jones getting absolutely shafted by the judges at the Olympics and losing in the final but still winning the Val Barker trophy for best boxer at the games was a bit of a moral victory.

When it comes to close, high class fights I don't really care if three strangers disagree with my result. I think Lewis beat Holyfield, but a woman who scored Lewis' most dominant round to Holyfield because their backs were to her. Why should she override my trust in my own judgement when she clearly has no idea how to score a round?

I can appreciate it when it's a close fight it can go either way, and sometimes does, but when it's clearly a robbery I don't see why we should just assume that everybody else in the world is wrong and only three people I've usually never heard of got it right.