Was Usyk robbed of a KO (Video)

Well the right man won regardless
This would be much more of a debate had Fury won

The good news for us that enjoyed the fight, they do it again very soon

I enjoyed the fight and I look forward to the rematch

 

I see it as it is at the referees discretion.
Some may have stopped it and other's may not.
I think all true fans just hope for a fair referee who treats both respected opponents equally

 

Many fights end with both fighters on their feet. Froch/Groves 1 for example

 

That fight didn't end with them both on their feet. It was stopped early and it was stopped because the ref felt Groves was in danger of serious injury.

Usyk v Fury finished without either fighter suffering serious injury or getting knocked out.

 

was the three knock down rule in effect?
if no then no if yes then we'll yes

 

I've given the ref some **** but in all fairness Usyk said he did a good job, and that is good enough for me.

 

Yes.

 

You did change horses. See standing 8 count and a fighter at risk vs a technical KD - which had to be explained to you. I've already highlighted the supporting evidence otherwise. No need to repeat myself.

Fury's health would've also been protected (and more so) had the fight been correctly stopped in the 9th round. Due stoppages are also intended to protect fighters. Yes, after 12 rounds, we did get to hear Fury blame the decision (which was also incorrectly close) on the Ukraine war and wish one and all a Happy New Year at the end of the fight. Wonderful.

How are you going with the highlighting of the ref obstructing Usyk multiple times during the round and then, later, assisting Fury part way back to his corner after the finish of the round? You don't want to touch those points? Okay....

As to "going slowly". Don't try to be cute unless you can take same back in kind without baulking and crying. Been there, seen that, many times before here. Basically, don't turn up the heat in the kitchen if you yourself can't stand the temperature that you set in the first place.

 

The scenario of being supported by the ropes most certainly did happen before.

The referee in the Ali - Wepner fight "dictated" that a KD was scored after Wepner stepped on Ali's foot and then knocked over an off-balance Ali with an otherwise innocuous body punch.

Based on your unrealistically rigid adherence to a ref's discretionary powers, I have to assume you accept that KD without qualm or opining otherwise.

Also note that you've highlighted an inconsistency in the ref's approach as many others have done (even those defending the ref's ultimate ruling of a KD). Based on the very same criteria, the ref could've ruled a technical KD several times prior during the round.

Here's a thought which I have illustrated multiple times previously - that the ref did his utmost to avoid ruling a KD (and therefore imposing a default 10-8 round against Fury) until Fury was at risk of getting knocked out altogether. A double favor to Fury with an 11th hour shift in priority.

The consistency of the ref's actions, or lack thereof, is a major point here and it is something that has been often ignored. I mean, those defending the ref won't touch the facts of his interfering and obstructing Uysk several times during the round - NOR the fact that the ref improperly assisted Fury part way back to his corner at round's end. Good referee?

 

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.