Well he did a cool shimmy shake ala Whitaker, and even though he didn’t land anything that made me giggle so I gave him that round. And then he put his hands behind his back in another round and stuck his chin out...I thought that was really cool, so I gave him that round too. So I think he won every round oh yeah and the KD rounds should be 9-9 because wilder might have dropped him but Fury was tough so I gave him those rounds too.
Or maybe ignore the showboating and toughness and simply focus on the boxing lesson given in those rounds.
Anybody that has wilder winning more then 3 rounds is either being tribal or don’t know how to score a fight.
You can definitely make an argument for Fury not losing a round. Fact is out of 36 minutes of that fight, Wilder won 2 minutes max, if that.
Fury was the only one connecting with combos. The only combo Wilder landed was the KD in the 12th round...
I'm glad I'm not the only one who felt a draw wasn't inconceivable. I had it 114-112 for Fury all the times I've watched it. A Wilder win is inconceivable though and the Mexican judges card was terrible.
I pretty much agree that a draw wasn't inconceivable but it's a stretch. You'd have to give Wilder 3 additional rounds outside of the knockdown rounds to have it a draw. I think it's hard to find 3 additional rounds to give Wilder, but the best candidates are rounds 1, 2, 6, 7, or 8. I might be able to give Wilder 2 of those rounds by a hair but 3 is pushing it. 1 and 2 were close, I could see splitting those first 2 rounds but having Wilder up 2 rounds to 0 after how well Fury was boxing doesn't seem right. Most agree that Fury won but when you get knocked down twice and almost out a draw doesn't seem as bad as the knockdowns played a big part in the scoring. That said, it's a robbery in the sense that many feel Fury should be WBC Champion and he isn't, due to what seems like home cookin. You could argue he won almost every round. But when you consider that the British judge had it a draw and the Canadian judge gave it to Fury that doesn't really add up to home cookin. The British Judge gave Wilder rounds 1, 6 and 7 which made it a draw. Rounds 6 and 7 the Mexican judge scored for Fury so that's something to consider. If the British judge would have scored those rounds like the Mexican judge, Fury would be WBC Champ.
It's very hard to pinpoint rounds which Wilder won (on top of those KD rounds)... I felt like he won the first. And then... Possibly the 8th, and 11th (but that's very questionable). All the other rounds (without knockdowns) were close but should be scored for Fury. So, like it or not, even a draw is very questionable and it feels like Fury should have been declared the winner.
There's no justification in giving Wilder the first round. Fury didn't land a whole lot , but Wilder landed nothing at all.
Even rounds should be scored even, a knockdown should be minus one, there would be far less controversies if boxing scored like that instead of the way they do score it, looking for 10-9's even when there is nothing between the boxers in a given round and then nearly always scoring a knockdown round as 10-8 its always been the same in my time. I run two scorecards mine [how a fight should be scored imo] and a judges card [how I think a judge is likely to score the fight].
Not a chance. Paulie was right, the judge that had it for Wilder should never be in a major fight again. I don't even see how one judge scored it a draw. I was expecting Fury to lose but he won without question
Two 10-8 knockdown rounds and Fury winning 7 of the other 10 rounds gives a draw, standard stuff really.
Well Fury winning only 7 of those 10 rounds is very favorable to Wilder. You can make an argument that Tyson won every round aside from the knockdown rounds. Like there were 1 or 2 rounds maybe that you could give to Wilder but 3 is stretching it. And not only that but you had a judge give Wilder 5 rounds in addition to the knockdown rounds.