Was Usyk robbed of a KO (Video)

Well unfortunately for you the supporting evidence didn't support you, nor was it evidence.

Allow me to go even slower for you, one step at a time in an attempt to keep this civil.

You said "Calls to stop a fight are made in the moment - when a fighter cannot viably continue and when he is also at risk of permanent damage in THAT moment."

I said "Risk of serious injury in that moment. The ref has to make a judgement call and since Fury didn't suffer serious injury in that moment the decision to not end the fight was correct."

Then you said "If the ref deemed Fury to be at the risk of serious injury, he stops the fight. Simple."

Then I said "The ref made a call, Fury wasn't at risk of serious injury, he was being held up by the ropes."

So as we can see, the horse I rode in on remains majestic for all to see. The ref deemed Fury was not at risk of serious injury, he instead deemed he was being held up by the ropes. Not even that, we know Fury did not suffer any serious injury therefore the ref was correct.

I don't know if I can break this down any further for you, so I'm going to finish off with a thank you, you proved your own point wrong which made the debate very easy on my part, so thank you for that.

Also thank you for keeping it civil, doesn't always happen in this place.

 

Summarily suggesting that the arguments that I've laid out are irrational does not make it so MM. It should be clear to anyone that the ref responded inconsistently to the facts of the situation.

I already explained to you the obvious meaning of "As and when it suits", the differentiation was made clear again in my follow reply but really, it shouldn't have been required but unfortunately, you're still ignoring it.

If I was a ref and pred med'd to favor the one fighter in my rulings and executed thusly, I could be aptly described as only making calls "As and when they suited ME" - without reasonable deference to consistently observed criteria and acceptable interpretation of same. Sorry man, but you're continuing to run with a false premise in that regard.

My question to you was not immaterial at all. You actually should've answered it to give an idea of your own consistency re your views on a ref's discretionary powers. There's no conjuring of "imagined" criteria. You've rigidly fallen on the concept of ref's discretion - do you apply your analysis similarly in all other comparative instances?

The analogy of a protracted count is perfectly apt and exactly on point. Many a time, the argument has been that the count falls under the umbrella of referee discretion, the meter, however slow or long it is tolled, being completely up to the ref and therefore acceptable. Unless I misread you, you labelled an obvious long count as a "rule breach" - that is completely inconsistent with your deference to referee discretion in this instance.

Again, you really should uphold the consistency of your interpretations in that regard. Of course, many claims posted to this board ultimately boil down to opinion - that they are opinions doesn't need to be qualified as such at each and every turn. If we rigidly deferred to all official rulings (as per referees and scoring) there'd be little to discuss here. I will say that there are a few here who only defer to official rulings "As and when it suits them".

You yourself flatly stated that the ref's decision wasn't arbitrary, rather, it was context driven. No qualification otherwise. That of course is just your opinion and very much open to question - which I have rationally laid out. There are no conflations whatsoever. Consistency is a major point when it comes to judging if a ref has properly applied his discretionary powers.

I haven't created a narrative and fit all else around it. I've described the facts and then drawn my own, more than reasonable, conclusions based on same.

I will repeat, I covered not just the trees but the forest also - and acknowledged or not, I provided multiple objective proofs. As to the forest, it seems many who defend the ref's call steer clear of the ref's obvious inconsistencies otherwise (CONTEXT) - including his blatant obstructions of Usyk during the round and his assisting Fury part way back to his corner at round's end.

 

I've made perfect sense.

Stalling a KD call could be seen as being intended to help Fury in the moment. Call a KD earlier - boom - an immediate 10-8 round with Fury at the short end of same. Instead, let's allow Tyson more time to avoid such a fate. There were also the ref's multiple, blatant obstructions of Usyk during that time - and his irregular assistance of Fury part way back to his corner at rounds end. Any given poster should address ALL the context.

I'm not the one cherry picking what the ref did right and wrong. I've identified the ref's inconsistencies - which immediately puts the ref into discredit. If he should've ruled a KD earlier, then he should've ruled it - he shouldn't have ruled a KD later after he ignored the same criteria that previously existed.

What is highly speculative is believing that Fury would've been better off with an earlier KD call. When the ref did make the call - Fury was about to be KO'd AND the call eliminated the remaining time that Usyk had left to continue his attack. Fury was absolutely gone in that moment - but the ref's intervention blocked a likely KO/stoppage and allowed Fury to go into straight into the 1-minute rest period - and to also be assisted part way back to his corner, no less. Yes, I keep repeating that because so many keep ingoring it.

It's not unreasonable to have interpreted that the ref waived his discretionary power re ruling any technical KDs or standing 8s - simply letting them go for broke - after that, if Tyson was rendered helpless - then stop the fight, which would've been the right call. Instead, the ref gave Fury two clear, sequential chances - the chance to avoid a 10-8 round by default and then actually saving him from a KO loss altogether. Tyson got both the money and the box.

 

End of? Lol. No, not actually.

Fury was falling into the ropes several times prior. The referee was completely inconsistent in his rulings (and lack thereof) and highlighting that fact is not absurd at all. It puts the referee into immediate discredit - and, removing yourself from the more substantive context, you're cherry picking as to which single call you "think" he got right vs the multiple calls you "think" he got wrong.

Based on his well implied and repeated interpretations earlier in the round, the right, consistently applied call would've been to stop the fight, rather than electing to call a technical KD instead - a call he refused to make several times earlier in the round, despite all the same boxes having been ticked for same.

The ref basically let Fury have his cake and eat it too. Allowed him every chance to avoid a default 10-8 round before ultimately having to save his ass altogether whilst preserving his "right" to continue.

IF you are actually a fan of Uysk, your prior posts suggest that you are so much more a fan of Fury, often trying to defend him beyond reason.

You know what's absurd? Claiming that Usyk literally ceased punching for the last 20 seconds of the first AJ fight in a baseless attempt to suggest that Usyk mercifully spared AJ from being KO'd - yes, that was your claim. Of course, that tainted, and completely false observation was intended to advantage Fury upon his durability being compared to AJ in the face of the same opponent, Usyk.

All aforementioned references are completely relevant and on point.

Should I now say " 'Nuff said" in kind or is "in kind" somehow not to your liking? - if not to your liking, that in itself would, yet again, signal your own inconsistent and contrary application of yourself.

 

I can be a fan of both fighters, as well as critical of both. I've shown it plenty in other discussions.

It was correctly called a knockdown. The referees "consistency" doesn't change that. Although had the referee called a knockdown earlier Fury would have likely not taken as much damage that round, which could have changed the outcome of the fight in Fury's favour. But hey, shoulda woulda coulda.

You know you're grasping at straws when you have to bring up prior threads that have no relevance to the discussion just to bolster your word count. Unnecessary tbh, and I'm gonna leave it at that before you get yourself banned again.

 

Again, if he had called the KD earlier, perhaps Fury could have recovered better and not be in a position to be finished off. Instead, the ref allowed Usyk to keep hitting. The fact you don't see that as beneficial to Usyk is puzzling.

 

Stating Usyk was robbed of a KO without any evidence of malfeasance is, in and of itself, irrational. That’s before we even get to the logical inconsistencies in your argument, which you seem determined to ignore or dismiss outright. Repeating a claim doesn’t make it more credible, especially when it’s built on speculation rather than evidence.

Clear to anyone? Only if they’re viewing it through the lens of their own bias. The Referee’s calls were context-driven, not inconsistent. Your claim remains an opinion, not a fact.

It seems you haven’t fully appreciated my prior response to this point.

I didn’t ignore your explanation - I directly addressed it. You attach ‘as and when it suits’ to bias and arbitrary decision-making, assuming the Referee ignored an imagined set of rigid criteria for which there is no evidence or baseline.

I interpret it differently... ...‘as and when it suits’ is the very definition of discretion/context-sensitive judgment applied in real time. Without evidence of Referee-bias or a specific criteria set the Referee was obligated to follow, the most reasonable conclusion is that the Referee was exercising legitimate discretion, not acting arbitrarily.

Your question was indeed immaterial because it attempted to shift the discussion away from the specific context of the Fury/Usyk fight to a generalized critique of my stance on Referee discretion. While I’ve referred to general principles of Referee discretion to illustrate how it operates in practice, my analysis has consistently focused on the specific discretionary decisions made during this bout, not on unrelated hypotheticals.

Any broader points were made to support the context-specific analysis of this fight and to refute flawed analogies, like your ‘long count’ scenario. Your attempt to question this is a misdirection rather than a substantive critique.


There’s nothing ‘rigid’ about recognizing the role of context-sensitive judgment. Discretion involves flexibility and adaptation, which is precisely what you’ve ignored by insisting on a uniform approach that doesn’t exist in real-world officiating. The case you’re trying to make hinges on an expectation that the Referee should follow an imagined, rigid set of criteria rather than adapting to the specific dynamics of the fight.

Your analogy of a protracted count is far from ‘perfectly apt’; it’s a clear false equivalence. There’s a fundamental difference between context-driven discretionary judgment -- like calling a knockdown or breaking up clinches -- and extending a count beyond the standard ten seconds. A delayed count, when it significantly exceeds the established time limit, is a procedural issue and often viewed as a rule breach, not an exercise of discretion.

The claim that the length of the count is ‘completely up to the ref’ is incorrect. While minor variations can occur based on factors like directing a fighter to a neutral corner, an extended count that noticeably deviates from the standard is controversial and would typically be seen as improper officiating. Your argument conflates procedural inconsistencies with legitimate real-time judgment, which is why the analogy doesn’t hold.

Consistency isn’t about rigidly deferring to every official ruling; it’s about applying logical principles and evidence-based reasoning across similar scenarios. You’ve relied on selective interpretations and speculative claims while accusing others of inconsistency. If we were to defer to referee discretion only when it suits our argument---as you suggest---it would mirror your approach, i.e., construing every decision through the lens of a predetermined narrative, rather than engaging with the context and evidence objectively.

A better practice would be to apply consistent standards of analysis, acknowledging both the role of Referee discretion and the realities of real-time officiating, rather than selectively interpreting actions to fit a particular viewpoint. Perhaps you could reflect on whether your own interpretations have upheld this standard.

Yes, I stated that the Referee’s decision was context-driven, because that is the very nature of discretion in officiating - adapting judgment to the evolving dynamics of the fight. Dismissing this as 'just my opinion' ignores the established role of Referee discretion.

You claim there’s no conflation, yet your argument consistently assumes bias without evidence, conflating legitimate discretionary judgment with arbitrary decision-making.

As for consistency, it doesn’t mean rigidly following the same criteria regardless of context. Consistency in this case means applying sound judgment appropriate to the situation. The Referee’s calls aligned with this principle, adapting to the fight as it unfolded, not acting arbitrarily.

You have, and you still are. Here’s your narrative replayed:

You started by asserting that Usyk was 'robbed of a KO' - a speculative claim without evidence of bias or misconduct. You then constructed a hypothetical scenario of a Referee acting with favoritism ('as and when it suits him'), assumed an imagined set of rigid criteria the Referee was supposed to follow, and concluded that any deviation from these criteria equates to arbitrary, biased decision-making.

This pattern is clear from one response to the next. You interpret every decision through a lens of Referee-bias and favoritism, fitting selective interpretations around your predetermined conclusion rather than engaging objectively with the context and evidence.

You haven’t provided objective proofs; you’ve offered selective interpretations that fit your narrative, favoring Usyk and opposing Fury. The claims of 'blatant obstructions' and 'assisting Fury' are subjective readings, not concrete evidence of misconduct. You’re pointing to isolated incidents and interpreting them as proof of Referee-bias, while overlooking context-driven decisions aligned with the Referee’s role.

You claim to have covered both 'the trees and the forest,' but you’ve done so by shaping every 'tree' to fit a predetermined narrative of favoritism, rather than analyzing the forest objectively.

 

Groves and Froch were both on their feet when their first fight finished
Go watch it again and see for yourself

That isn't in dispute
If the ref had have stopped the Usyk/Fury fight it would likely have been for that reason
That is the reason most fights are stopped

I know that and that hasn't been disputed either
Who's to say Groves and Froch 1 wouldn't have ended with both on their feet and without serious injury?
This is the point
Nobody knows. Bit before your time but Gerald McClellan was fighting competitively with Nigel Benn for the majority of their fight, but ended up with terrible injuries

 

I don't want to be talking badly about the poster you are debating here but he tends to think of himself as being clever with comments like going slowly.
He often completely doesn't get something and thinks he has outsmarted.
Not long ago he didn't get something addressed but I really couldn't be bothered to go through it with him again. Even when I corrected him he wrote something like he thought I was confused again, which summed it up. I let him have the last word as I realised he really didn't understand at all and I didn't want to insult, especially to someone who views themselves so highly

 

There's nothing really for me to reply to here.

 

Suggesting again that you're delivering your message slow (even slower this time around) is not civil.

Thanks for illustrating your obviously false position in that regard.

It's quite funny that you're totally oblivious to the fact you have just contradicted yourself yet AGAIN while my words that you quoted stand up fine.

Different rulings involved different reasonings. You didn't even know what ruling the ref actually enforced: -

YOU: "So let's say the ref doesn't give a standing 8 count. Let's say Usyk continues to tee off on him.

In a couple more seconds Fury goes down or takes a knee. The fight absolutely doesn't need to get stopped."

Yes, you rode in on a horse you named Silver but, ultimately, you were "majestically" hobbled out, backward in the saddle, on Mr. Ed. Thanks for that.

Yee haw.

Nothing like a bit of levity with a good dose of truth embedded in it, is there?

 

[QUOTE="chacal, post: 23143829, member: 111449" ]Before in the fight, not before in history.

Without Fury not doing it intentionally, Fury is only supported by the ropes once in the fight. That's the KD.[/QUOTE]

I meant it did occur before in the actual fight, round 9, Usyk vs Fury.

Context. You said that the ref in the Usyk vs Fury fight "dictated" that it was a KD, therefore it was a KD. Period. I said the ref in the Ali vs Wepner fight also "dictated" that Wepner KD'd Ali - that didn't make it a legit KD and properly applied common sense tells us that it wasn't.

 

"Perhaps" but perhaps not. Based on how the ref ruled later in the round, then he should've a technical KD earlier. Inconsistent. It's not unreasonable to muse that during the period prior to the ruled KD, the ref possibly chose not to rule a technical KD in order to protect Fury from an immediate 10-8 round score.

As to being put in a position to be finished - Usyk had to get past the ref several times in order to maintain his assault - an assault that the ref had interrupted multiple times. Just prior to Fury teetering back into the ropes on the other side of the ring, the ref literally laid hands on Usyk during his assault - not on Fury, just Usyk - Fury falling back immediately after that breaking of the action actually bought Tyson valuable, crucial seconds. Usyk then got back on the job, landing some more hard shots - lo and behold, the referee then obstructed Usyk again and he had to be brushed aside again.

 

I've civilly and soundly defeated you here, you should have more humility about you

 

No, if allowing the fight to continue wasn't an option, the fight should've been stopped. The ref expressly let the ship sail on calling a technical KD (when it was equally eligible) multiple times before he did actually call one - and he only made the call when Fury was on the precipice of being KO'd/stopped.

The ref also interfered with Usyk several times during his assault - interesting that you don't ever address that fact. Yes, that is on subject but if you're not inclined or unable to address it, that's fine, it is what it is, just let the record show.

As to your own, actual off- subject comment, I didn't get myself banned and that ban, related to another thread and had nothing to do with you, correct? So, you've contradicted yourself.

Since my return, but for replying to you, I haven't mentioned the ban nor has anyone else. Good one. So, who's clutching at straws? Certainly not me. Your comments otherwise do not warrant a reply. I've already made and proven my point on that particular subject.