No point of me repeating what Delboy said. Hayers is a hater in disguise. Doesn't troll as blatantly as some but if you read his assessments of everything Fury has done in his career, it's unconditional hate. He somehow fails to see the predictability of him being in the tiny minority who falsely claim the fight was a draw.
But I think one thing everyone accepts is that judges can sometimes be drawn towards judging on aggression. I'm not saying for a moment that this should always be the case, but we know it happens. In fact, before the fight I even said that it would possibly be a bit unfair on Tyson but close rounds might be awarded on aggression which may hinder him. Basically I tend to find that if your game is defensive; slipping shots and so on you need to be landing more than seven per round on average to get a clear decision. Ortiz for example landed more on Wilder than Tyson did and historic 'schoolings' often demonstrate that the differences between punches landed is way, way wider than this fight.
but they are to judge on effective aggression not aggression nothing you have stated is in the rules of scoring a fight the number of shots doesnt matter as long as its more than the opponent and also more efficient this is what is stated in the rules. Everything is is just opinion which is irrelevant. The fight has to be judged on the rules of scoring and this fight clearly wasnt.
Again I'm not saying Tyson didn't win the vast majority of rounds, but given how close some of the non knockdown rounds were I can see how, when you have instances of a guy landing one more punch, that he may have been given the nod in three of them. I think Tyson won a lot of rounds without winning then that clearly if that makes sense!
Wilder's team jumped up and down celebrating a draw. That says it all. His bloody team knew he lost and we still have clowns on here saying otherwise.
You made an argument for some rounds possibly being scored to Wilder...yet your own score is 114-112 to Fury. I think that scorecard is generous but you have correctly said that Fury won. So please pleeaase stop bringing up punch stats as an excuse for corrupt/incompetent judging. Me and you have debated how a fight is scored and punch stats alone don’t tell you who won a fight. There is unfortunately a level of corruption in our sport and it’s absolutely disgusting. We shouldn’t try to justify it. It was a robbery and these kind of scorecards result in fans walking away from the sport.
Punch stats don't tell you everything about a fight but, for example, when Calzaghe and Lewis beat Lacy and Holyfield they landed more than two hundred more punches than their opponent. When people correctly questioned the draw card in the Canelo Mayweather fight people were quick to point out Floyd landed a hundred more punches. Tyson landed 13 more punches and was knocked down twice. I know that a lot of rounds were close. I can't see how a fight which could easily have been 114-112 to one guy therefore he deemed a robbery if the fight is a draw. Lots of close hard to score rounds will end up with that happening. The 115-111 card was ridiculous and I don't think for a moment Wilder won. But I can see how a draw was given. If that makes me a poisonous hater or whatever so be it. For me that's all a bit silly.
How can a draw be given though?? A fight is scored round by round, we can’t just say ‘well, he got knocked down twice and there was a few close rounds so I can forgive a draw decision being given’. You can gift Wilder a couple of rounds like you’ve done with your scoring (and the Canadian judge) but NONE of the other rounds were close. They simply wasn’t. You have to blatantly ignore the evidence happening before your eyes to give them rounds to Wilder. They were clear Fury rounds. Avoid referring back to punch stats to suggest they were cos they don’t tell the story. This isn’t about being a hater or whatever. Scoring is subjective but even so, if you give Wilder 2x 10-8 rounds and 3x 10-9 rounds then you’re incompetent or corrupt.
You say 'scoring is subjective.' So presumably you accept that different judges will score based on different things; did they see the punches land clean or not? Are they looking to award aggression, even if the aggression isn't particularly effective. And what is 'effective' aggression anyway? If it's throwing lots, forcing your opponent to take shots to the arms and gloves, backing them up and tiring them out, is that not effective? It seems to me that if you accept scoring is subjective and can see how a fight can be scored 114-112, then it's not beyond the realms of possibility for it to be scored 113-113. There just weren't enough very obvious Fury rounds for that to be the case. We'll have to agree to disagree here but I'd have expected Tyson to win, wasn't particularly shocked with a draw but didn't think Wilder did enough to win.
For aggression to be effective you have to land the shots and not get countered, otherwise it’s just aggression as you say. Wilder threw lots of wild shots that missed. Therefore, it wasn’t effective.
You say this as though he was missing all night and getting countered at will. That didn't really happen as far as I could see.
Apart from round 9 and 12 he was missing all night. He missed 151 power shots. Most of which were proper potential knockout blows. I remember you posting before the fight how you didn’t like Fury. It’s affecting your objectivity on the judgement of the fight.
Well, he can't have been missing all night, because Tyson only landed 13 more punches than him. This is the problem I think I have with how people have played this fight out. I know Tyson didn't land much because he didn't land much. He didn't look like he landed much, the stats suggest he didn't land much, he never looked to have Wilder in anything approaching danger. Yes, he gets a lot of credit for avoiding a lot of Wilder's punches but I don't think it was enough to make the draw seem like the robbery people are suggesting. Anyway, there are people on here who are suggesting Wilder won, that Wilder was robbed by a long count and so on. Maybe some are trolls but a lot seem like long term posters with reasonable views on other fights. It's a shame that people can't seem to be objective about these things, and if anyone dare suggest that maybe Tyson wasn't that great that they're simply haters 'poisoning' the place. That's just ridiculously OTT.
