How Long Does Wilder Last, As An 80 's Belt Holder?

Magic. It's great that the numbers are so important to you. I'm sure we'll hear now why Fury nevertheless landing more punches and landing more powerpunches is also very important.

Yeah, but most people had Fury winning the fight i'm afraid. I mean you are, now, presenting an argument for the draw/for Wilder and you're in a real minority there. You know where you'd be a minority of one if it's the case? Scoring the import of punches thrown over punches landed.

Fury landed more shots. Fury landed more power-punches. Eye on the ring has the fight scored 9-3 for Fury. Showtime and BT Sport had identical cards with Fury four points ahead of strap-holder Wilder. This is very much in keeping with the ringside parlance.

But if you think it was close fight, I'm not going to call you out for that. Everyone here knows yoru relationship with Wilde runs to the fulsome and nobody is surprised you're in the minority that thought the judge's got it right, if that's what you are saying. But probably nobody takes it that seriously either.

I have absolutely no idea why you are saying these things to me, but you do sound unhinged.

 

Fury was clear he wasn't in the best of shape. I mean he was absolutely explicit about it.

Then in the second fight he was absolutely explicit that he was in great shape. Then, in the third fight, despite an awful, awful build up, he was once again explicit that he was in great shape.

 

Yes, there's no point in talking to choklab about HW boxing tbh.

But I do feel the same way about you when it comes to Wilder.

 

It doesn't matter who was the challenger, and who was the champion. What mattered is who won more rounds, and in the opinion of almost everyone watching, Fury won more rounds and gathered more points, thereby deserving the decision. That is a very clear majority opinion.

It doesn't matter how many things you write; it doesn' tamtter how you write them or what you put in brackets. That is always going to be true.

It was a **** draw.

As an aside (and I don't care) Ring, who you have quoted in this thread as an authority, consider this a meeting of undefeated champions, lineal versus WBC. They report it as exactly that. So even these arguments are from entirely one fighters perspective (not that they matter anyway, at all).

 

No. Nobody believed Fury was in anything like the shape he managed for the second fight, for example, and some thought he was finished as a top-line fighter. That is, there were some who thought he would never get back to the top of the division.

As always when you are exposed to a completely biased perspective, that perspective inevitably diminishes the achievement of the other fighter, because what Fury did out of shape in that fight was astonishing.

 

That's absolutely untrue. The proliferation of belts saw to that too. The house fighter, the money fighter, he's the one with the biased lean now. Nobody gives a **** if the IBF champion gets ****ed over if the next IBF champion is going to be worth even 2% more.

 

Boxrec, too, reported it as a clash of unbeaten champions and still recognise it as such.

Probably more to do with clicks than anything else, but it happened.