by Corey E, BetUS.com – BET NOW!

Boxing betting fans worldwide all had an opinion about the close decision in this past weekend’s Miguel Cotto-Joshua Clottey contest. Some felt that Cotto was more active than Clottey and thus won the fight, while others cited Clottey’s aggressiveness and pressure as reasoning for him to have won the fight.

In the end, it was Cotto who delighted the crowd with a split decision victory.

Prior to the fight, those betting on boxing generally agreed with the boxing odds: There was no way Clottey would win a decision in Madison Square Garden, packed with Puerto Rican fans backing Cotto. But while Cotto did indeed win the fight, arguing that Clottey lost due to a conspiracy such as this would be a very short-sighted analysis.

In addition to the pre-fight conspiracy theory, fueling this debate is the seemingly outrageous 116-111 scorecard in favor of Cotto. To call that scorecard outrageous is certainly not an understatement. However, it was just that-a bad scorecard. Another judge scored the bout 115-112 Cotto, which is entirely within reason. The fact that the third judge had Clottey winning 114-112 is irrelevant. The judge with the lopsided score decided that Cotto had won the fight-he simply misjudged the competitiveness of the bout.

If you were to review the fight, you would find that Clottey had every opportunity to defy the boxing lines and defeat Cotto, but simply blew the final three rounds. In a way, Clottey admitted to this in his post-fight interview with HBO’s Jim Lampley, stating that he didn’t throw many punches because he assumed he was ahead on the scorecards, and didn’t want to give Cotto, a strong counterpuncher, an opportunity for a knockout.

Okay, knowing that, let’s back up to the very basics of judging a boxing contest.

If you were to judge that fight round by round, and decided that Clottey won, that is fair. However, to suggest that Clottey was robbed, or that Cotto clearly won the fight is absolutely wrong.

While it may have seemed that Clottey was the aggressor because he was always moving forward, this isn’t always the case-see: Hector Camacho vs. Julio Cesar Chavez. Even if he was the aggressor, that fact is only one of four things judges are instructed to look at in a boxing betting contest. Aggression is one, but so is defense, cleanliness and power of punches, and ring generalship-and again, all are taken into account on a round by round basis.

Clottey’s admission that he was afraid to throw punches in the final three rounds is a clear-cut admission of defeat as well. Based on defense (preventing Clottey from throwing punches), clear and hard punching power (the main reason why Clottey didn’t throw punches), ring generalship (leading Clottey to the ropes where he wanted him), and aggression (not in its most obvious form-but throwing more punches than your opponent can be construed as being more aggressive), Cotto took all three of the final rounds, which ultimately decided the fight.

Case closed.

Now, bring on Pacquiao-Cotto.