Was Usyk robbed of a KO (Video)

You know I'm right. You're just too easy to tick off. Fanboyism showing though all the way.

 

This scenario didnt happen before. There is a punch that is kind of similar, but not the same at all. The one Rummy mentions. Even watching this punch in slow motion it is very hard to determine if it should be ruled a KD or not because it is impossible to know if Fury does it on purpose or not. And even being so hard to decide it using slow motion, my decision is that it is not a KD and that Fury could have avoided falling backwards but he decided not to do it because he knew that the ropes were there. Anyone could disagree, and I would say that they are judging wrongly. What Rummy says is that, since it is subjective, if the referee decides do call it a KD the only thing you could say is that he was execessively rigorous and that you don't agree with his subjective appreciation. That's all. But the referee judged correctly, which is a really good thing.

When the referee dictated a KD, there is no doubt at all it is a KD. So no, that situation does not happen before and there isnt any conflict at all.... but in your mind.

There are no two KDs anywhere. There is a KD, and a situation that the referee could have misjudged as a KD being excessively rigorous, but he didnt. So double success for the referee, and without having to watch the scene in slowmotion and without arguing for 6 pages. Good referee.

 

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

Great job, Rummy, as always!

 

Stop it

From chatgpt:

Moreover, a refree can stop the fight in a regular KD. Your videos prove nothing. Lamotta cannot be technical-KD, because the rule didnt exist. And castillo is stopped because he is stopped, period, he would have been equally stopped had he touched the ground. When there is a KD the referee decides if he counts or stops the fight.

 

I believe ultimately the job of the referee is to protect the fighters. He has to make decisions on a case by case basis. There is a certain art to it. You can’t turn what is an art into a science.

There are plenty of examples of fighters getting stoped on their feet it on the ropes. But then again every 8 count can potentially be ruled a stoppage. Then just do away with the 8 count and let them fight in until they are unconscious or give up.

I think Fury was able to continue the fight. But in those very seconds he was hanging on those ropes it was irresponsible to let him take more shots. So that’s what the 8 count is for. To reset the fight for the sake of safety, meanwhile still rewarding the fighter that did the damage. If Fury really had been out Usyk would have been able to finish him off after the 8 count.

 

Ok

 

Ok

 

This content is protected

This is the best example of why the referee made the right call in the Fury vs Usyk fight.

 

Unfortunately, the arguments you lay out are a fine example of how to put an irrational case.

Firstly, your prior claim that Fury was saved from an "obviously imminent KO" is a speculative interpretation masquerading as fact. Moreover, the Referee's job is not to predict the outcome but to act in real time based on what they see.

It should be clear to anyone reading your take on this matter that you believe the Referee responded to the facts of the situation---facts, that is, as defined by you.

Your response to my point about the Referee's discretion is surprising, to say the least.

"As and when it suits him" is literally what discretion is. It's the Referee's job to adapt decisions based on the fight's context, not to follow a rigid set of criteria detached from what's happening in the ring. Conjuring up imaginary criteria to which a Referee is absolutely bound is the exact opposite of discretion.

Your argument for "criteria consistency" from the Referee:

- Is based on an assumption of inconsistency without any objective proof;
- Overlooks that circumstances change from moment to moment in a fight;
- Ignores the potential advantage afforded to Usyk by the referee not calling a knockdown earlier, allowing him to maintain offensive momentum.

The Referee's decision wasn't arbitrary—it was context-driven. Unless you can show clear evidence of deliberate bias, claiming misuse of discretion is, at best, highly speculative.

The analogy of a 20-second count misrepresents the nature of Referee discretion. Equating it to a clear rule violation is a false equivalence that fundamentally misunderstands what discretion actually entails.

Your question, "You've never interpreted any referee misusing and abusing his discretionary powers or applying them inequitably?" is immaterial. Whether Referees have misused discretion in other cases is irrelevant here. The burden is on you to provide evidence of misconduct in this specific fight, not to rely on speculation or unrelated examples.


In summary, you're conflating context-driven discretion with inconsistency. The Referee's role is to interpret the action in real time, which can naturally lead to different decisions based on the fighters' positioning, momentum, and visible damage. The fact that some calls seemed to favor Fury is your interpretation, not objective evidence of bias. Realistically, one cannot simultaneously accept that Referees have discretion and then claim any use of it that doesn't fit their narrative is an abuse of power.

So, again—that's just it: The referee does have the discretionary right to make those calls based on how they see the moment unfold, which is precisely what happened in round nine. Your claim of favoritism is based on your subjective reading of events, but different interpretations are inevitable in a dynamic situation like this.

It’s when stating one's case as an absolute version of the truth that irrationality becomes apparent.

 

Your point about the ref not ruling a KD until Fury was about to be finished off doesn't support the idea that Usyk was robbed of a KO.

If anything, you could say the judge didn't correctly call a KD earlier when he should have. If that had happened it's possible Usyk would have never been in a position to finish Fury off. He allowed Usyk to tee off on Fury several times instead of calling a KD. Then he finally made a correct call and called a KD.

That didn't help Fury at all, on the contrary.

You are basically claiming "if the ref had been consistent about never calling KDs when the ropes held up Fury, Usyk would have won by KO". So you are banking on the ref ****ing up every time rather than him ****ing up every time except once.

Makes no sense.

 

The ref also stopped Usyk from actually finishing Fury off at the perfect moment, but he started an 8 count instead lol and then proceeded to hinder Usyks attempts to get at Fury. The ref massively influenced the action in that round.

 

It didn't surprise me, because Rummy is always favoring Western fighters over Eastern fighters, he's biased in my opinion. He had also claimed AJ would beat Usyk.

In the rematch, not even the ref won't be able to save Fury.

 

Yeah, right, save a fighter from getting knocked out by interfering and giving him a 10 count to recover.

Usyk was definitely robbed of a knock out victory.