Most people seem to think that Lewis was losing every second of every round and was given a beat down up until the stoppage, but watching it back again today Vladamir was taking some serious punishment aswell and the rounds were difficult ones to score.
Hatton vs Mayweather
Another similar one where people think Hatton was schooled, completely out boxed and didnt deserve to share a ring with mayweather. But at the time of the KO in round 10 Hatton was only 2 points down including a 1 point deduction. It really was a close fight.
If we will be talking about fights that happen 40-50 years ago, we may be talking of fights conducted in a different set of rules that we have now. Today, Fights are scored based on the 10 point must system where a fighter could gain as much as four points margin in a single round over an opponent if he scores three knockdowns. (The three knockdowns rule is also waived at present). A fighter can also not be saved by the bell at present except for the final round.
In the past, winners were adjudged on the basis of rounds won so even if a fighter got knocked down many times in a fight, but not more than two times in any round, he could still emerge winner if he won most of the rounds contested. A fighter could also be saved by the bell in any round. Automatic TKO victory was also awarded to a fighter who downed his opponent three times in a single round.
There's a difference in perception therefore as we view those fights of yore now based on our understanding of the current day rules.
It would be better if we can narrow down this discussion on fights based on the era when the rules we have now have been instituted.
Hagler vs Leonard.
People sh*t all over that decision (one scorecard was terrible), and act as if Hagler was robbed of a victory in one of the biggest screwjobs ever.
In reality, that was a very close fight that could've been a draw or 115-113 for either guy. I've watched/scored it at least three times, and have always had the same score, 115-113 for Leonard.
edit: I said this b/c the older people I know that saw this fight live describe it as a white wash for Hagler, and hate the fact that Leonard won. You can't tell them different, and believe me I've tried.
Their stories change whenever it comes up to, during the anniversary or whatever. It went from being a close fight Hagler deserved to win, to slowly over the years a becoming complete robbery.
Spinks Holmes 1
It should of been a draw
If you watch the fight closely Michael looked like he landed a bunch of combos but he didnt really.
Larry was 48-0 and a lot of people who were Marciano fans didnt want him to win.
And those Marciano fans controlled Vegas to a large degree in '85
Well then in that case I'm going to have to say Manny Pacquiao vs Timothy Bradley. Yep, sure it wasn't 25 years ago or even 5 years ago but already people, actually immediately people were talking about Pacman being robbed but perhaps in contrast to your question it'll actually take a couple of decades before people start to accept that the fight was very close indeed, so close I had it 114-114 at the end of the live broadcast and so was one of the few people not screaming obscenities at the TV
Meldrick Taylor vs JCC 1. Also JMM vs Pac 3. Trinidad vs DLH.
I've already asked this question but I didn't really explain what I mean by this question very well.
I'll try and explain it better this time,
Here's an example of what I mean. Take a fight from say 25 years ago. At the time, the fight was very close and could have gone either way, but when people are reminiscing about the fight 25 years later, they remember it as being a one sided beat down for the winner and the true nature of the fight gets lost in the annals of time.
Kind of like how you start off with a story and it gets retold and retold over the years, and ends up becoming totally different from the original story
Hope that makes sense!
