Who did you have winning Tyson Fury vs. Deontay Wilder and how did you score it? It ended in a draw.

[cottagecheesefan]

Lol you’re completely delusional if you think Wilder won RD 1-4.

the entire fight is available on youtube. Please time stamp/paste the URL of the time stamp of any point in the first 4 rounds that Fury "won" a round. Otherwise Wilder is the aggressor and there is a 1-2 punch difference in landed punches.

 

[RudimarChute]

the entire fight is available on youtube. Please time stamp/paste the URL of the time stamp of any point in the first 4 rounds that Fury "won" a round. Otherwise Wilder is the aggressor and there is a 1-2 punch difference in landed punches.

Cool story bro, you realize like every pro disagrees with you right? 88% on this thread said Fury won, you’re in the VAST minority on this opinion so burden of proof is on you.

 

[Seano]

The only marginally close RD outside of KD’s was I think 7. Fury won every other round comfortably.

Meh, I think people gave Fury extra credit for doing better than expected. He boxed well, I don't argue that but not so well to say there were no close rounds.

 

[Seano]

the entire fight is available on youtube. Please time stamp/paste the URL of the time stamp of any point in the first 4 rounds that Fury "won" a round. Otherwise Wilder is the aggressor and there is a 1-2 punch difference in landed punches.

I had it 38-38 after 4. 2 apiece in the first 4.

 

[cottagecheesefan]

Cool story bro, you realize like every pro disagrees with you right? 88% on this thread said Fury won, you’re in the VAST minority on this opinion so burden of proof is on you.

lmao, "burden of proof". I already said I could see it either way, just simmer down and suck yer mum's teet.

I had it 38-38 after 4. 2 apiece in the first 4.

Ignore this ass clown, but how did you score the rest of the fight? You probably posted your score, but I missed it, between traveling and the flood of casuals. I have seen it multiple times and feel it could go either way. Being a judge, the night of, that is being in a rough spot. Thankfully, there was no 118 for Canelo type score.

With your score, Wilder gets 10-8 in the 2 rounds with the KD's,. since no deductions right? Isn't that a draw?

 

[Seano]

lmao, "burden of proof". I already said I could see it either way, just simmer down and suck yer mum's teet.



Ignore this ass clown, but how did you score the rest of the fight? You probably posted your score, but I missed it, between traveling and the flood of casuals. I have seen it multiple times and feel it could go either way. Being a judge, the night of, that is being in a rough spot. Thankfully, there was no 118 for Canelo type score.

With your score, Wilder gets 10-8 in the 2 rounds with the KD's,. since no deductions right? Isn't that a draw?

I ended up with 115/111 wilder but I think I had one round flip flopped. 114/112 Wilder seems appropriate.

 

[Seano]

Sorry, I edited after you liked @cottagecheesefan

 

[cottagecheesefan]

I ended up with 115/111 Fury but I think I had one round flip flopped. 114/112 Wilder seems appropriate.

I see the edit, no problem.

It is just one of those fights that is just so hard to score, and adding in various knockdowns, when the downed fighter should have won the round. It just sucks to be a judge, especially with no replays and what not. Like I said, being in person, I gave Wilder potentially the first 4 rounds, and then the 2 rounds with knock downs 10-8... since most judges dont give 9-9/10-10 rounds. So that is quite a potential 4 point swing. I personally thought the KD rounds should be even, but that is not common. I also thought both did hardly anything the first 4 rounds, and even the rest of the fight was pretty dull, outside of the knock down drama.

It was a great fight, but neither "won" it.

JMM vs Pac 1-3 are clear examples, among many others.

 

[Lots]

Fury won 9-10 rounds. The fight was low output for the most part, like most heavyweight fights but Fury narrowly won the majority of the rounds.

So narrowly that people are having a hard time convincingly calling him the winner. But boxing is about winning more rounds not winning rounds more dramatically.

The majority of the boxing community had Fury winning.

Even Mayweather had Fury winning the first five rounds.

 

[RudimarChute]

lmao, "burden of proof". I already said I could see it either way, just simmer down and suck yer mum's teet.



Ignore this ass clown, but how did you score the rest of the fight? You probably posted your score, but I missed it, between traveling and the flood of casuals. I have seen it multiple times and feel it could go either way. Being a judge, the night of, that is being in a rough spot. Thankfully, there was no 118 for Canelo type score.

With your score, Wilder gets 10-8 in the 2 rounds with the KD's,. since no deductions right? Isn't that a draw?

Lol keep living in your dream world buddy. Fury won, period.

 

[Goatenstein]

Anti-Americanism and racism are all this poll represents.

 

[Canelo]

So can someone please justify these clear rounds for Wilder outside the two 10-8's, and do so using the actual scoring criteria? I'd be very interested in seeing some of the arguments. We can maybe start with round 4 that I've seen people give to Wilder, and anyone who is guilty of that simply doesn't know how to score a boxing fight.

@Seano Your analysis especially should be interesting, seeing as you typically always favour the boxer over the puncher, and you've been very vocal in the past about the equal scoring criteria and what constitutes 'effective aggression' in particular. I mean you had Bradley beating Pacquiao ffs, and no you didn't score it a draw, that was your first score, you scored it to Bradley on second watch.

If someone is actually willing to break down some of these rounds using the actual criteria, and not just 'Wilder was the aggressor', I will be more than happy to do the same.

 

[treelo]

So can someone please justify these clear rounds for Wilder outside the two 10-8's, and do so using the actual scoring criteria? I'd be very interested in seeing some of the arguments. We can maybe start with round 4 that I've seen people give to Wilder, and anyone who is guilty of that simply doesn't know how to score a boxing fight.

@Seano Your analysis especially should be interesting, seeing as you typically always favour the boxer over the puncher, and you've been very vocal in the past about the equal scoring criteria and what constitutes 'effective aggression' in particular. I mean you had Bradley beating Pacquiao ffs, and no you didn't score it a draw, that was your first score, you scored it to Bradley on second watch.

If someone is actually willing to break down some of these rounds using the actual criteria, and not just 'Wilder was the aggressor', I will be more than happy to do the same.

The boxer v puncher suits peoples(not yours seano, just peoples...no attacking) opinion when it favours a fighter they prefer.

 

[Seano]

So can someone please justify these clear rounds for Wilder outside the two 10-8's, and do so using the actual scoring criteria? I'd be very interested in seeing some of the arguments. We can maybe start with round 4 that I've seen people give to Wilder, and anyone who is guilty of that simply doesn't know how to score a boxing fight.

@Seano Your analysis especially should be interesting, seeing as you typically always favour the boxer over the puncher, and you've been very vocal in the past about the equal scoring criteria and what constitutes 'effective aggression' in particular. I mean you had Bradley beating Pacquiao ffs, and no you didn't score it a draw, that was your first score, you scored it to Bradley on second watch.

If someone is actually willing to break down some of these rounds using the actual criteria, and not just 'Wilder was the aggressor', I will be more than happy to do the same.

Who says anything about clear? Is there some reason I'm required to give the close rounds to Fury?

 

[Seano]

The boxer v puncher suits peoples(not yours seano, just peoples...no attacking) opinion when it favours a fighter they prefer.

Or maybe they just score one fight for the puncher and one for the boxer. You guys act as though I'm supposed to have some predetermined score before the fight starts. Maybe thats why some of you get confused, going into a fight with bias like that.

 

[george-oli]

Fury is going to school him in the rematch. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if he stopped him.

 

[george-oli]

Who says anything about clear? Is there some reason I'm required to give the close rounds to Fury?

I'm curious to see why you gave them to Wilder though.

We all agree that most of the rounds were close, and my reason for giving most of the close rounds to Fury is because he looked to land more and he made Wilder miss more than he landed.

Sure Wilders punches were harder but other than that he was mostly swinging and missing.

When Canelo fought GGG 1 you gave rounds to Canelo for making GGG miss, even though GGG was still obviously out landing Canelo for that round.

Fury made Wilder miss while still out landing him (all be it slightly) and you still gave the rounds to Wilder.

Just curious to see why.

 

[Canelo]

Who says anything about clear? Is there some reason I'm required to give the close rounds to Fury?

You said a 10-2 score was farcical, that's a ridiculous statement to make if you can't highlight any clear rounds for Wilder.

I can highlight some clear Fury rounds if you'd care to explain to me how I'm wrong? A round can be close but clear, and the vast majority of those rounds were clearly for Fury if you actually look at the scoring criteria.

You give the close rounds to Fury because he is the one winning the round according to how you judge fights. As I said, I'm interested in hearing you explain how I'm wrong on that one.

 

[Canelo]

Or maybe they just score one fight for the puncher and one for the boxer. You guys act as though I'm supposed to have some predetermined score before the fight starts. Maybe thats why some of you get confused, going into a fight with bias like that.

Well you score fights, based on how you score fights...

No one is saying your methodology should be 100% consistent from fight to fight, but generally if you favour the boxer, that means you value defense, accuracy more than average, or in your case, devalue aggresion.

It's relevant because the only way you can give some of those rounds to Wilder is based on aggression that isn't effective by any definition, which is something you've argued strongly inline with plenty of times.

If you're abandoning that now then yeah, you're just not very good at scoring fights, or you like Wilder a bit too much.

 

[treelo]

Or maybe they just score one fight for the puncher and one for the boxer. You guys act as though I'm supposed to have some predetermined score before the fight starts. Maybe thats why some of you get confused, going into a fight with bias like that.

Not confused, you use it to suit your arguments, and discredit other people when they dont agree with you.

I will gladly watch the Fury-Wilder fight again(i have not seen it since i watched it live) and score it round by round with you.

What you do is you say in one fight the guy coming forwards should be given the round as he was stalking and landing the more powerful shots, and on the other say you preffered the guy who landed less shots in a fight but won as he was technically better.

You cant have it both ways.