Was Usyk robbed of a KO (Video)

@Man_Machine

I had to address in this way in order to fit my reply in. Lol. You like a good debate, so strap yourself in for some reading.

Of course, stating that the ref made his calls as and when it SUITED HIM carried its own clear meaning. Yes, arbitrary and bias in nature. Key words: SUITED HIM - obviously not to be confused with the ref fulfilling his expected role.

If I said that you're making arguments to SUIT YOURSELF, would you plead similar confusion re the intended meaning. Of course, you wouldn't. Well, since I had to break it down and explain it when I really shouldn't have needed to, you understand now at any rate.

The referees CLEAR lack of consistency whilst always benefitting Fury, which I have illustrated, indicated that he was not acting with legitimate discretion. Whether you like/accept that or not, those are PROOFs. Again, my question posed to you was not at all immaterial. You went all in on accepting a ruling based solely on the concept of referee discretion. You should be consistent in your views re all other calls made under the empowerment of referee discretion. Lol, that's not shifting off point - it is EXACTLY on point.

You later added that the ref's calls or lack therefor were context driven and not inconsistent - well of course, that's your opinion, not fact - cuts both ways my friend. I'm not going to repeat myself specifically, it's already there to read, but I have most definitely proven the inconsistent approach by the referee. There are even those who, while they believe that the ruling of the technical KD was correct, also believe that the ref should've ruled a technical KD earlier based on the same criteria - that is NOT consistent refereeing so sorry, but you're clearly wrong there.

Also, you've failed to address the lack of consistency displayed when the referee obstructed Usyk twice during his barrage and the fact that he assisted Fury part way back to his corner at the end of the round - did you conclude that to be proper and good refereeing? You saw no inconsistencies or errors in those actions - simply accepted them without question?

I haven't ignored the idealized, legitimately exercised flexibility of ref discretion at all - I simply haven't taken referee discretion, in and of itself, as the be all end all answer and justification for all actions taken by referees. See, that was another one of your logical fallacies, and there are quite a number. Acknowledging that referees are bestowed with discretionary powers, but also critiquing/questioning calls made under that authority are not mutually exclusive concepts, as you clearly implied.

I gave you an example of a long count, deliberately tolled slowly. Obviously, I revealed the ulterior motive. Manifestly, as an observer, you're not privy to the ref's improper motive, you simply witness a near "10" count tolled over a period of 20 seconds. So, since the tolling of the count comes under referee discretion, you're not going to question that, and simply accept it? That is the position you began with. There was no false equivalence.

Dare I say you have simply tried to reduce the parameters for discussion to suit yourself in order to avoid upholding your own consistency in terms of your treatment on these matters.

You can't provide a hard and fast threshold for a "long count" to conclude a black and white rule breach - because there isn't a hard and fast threshold. According to many, there is no standard 10 second count - many believe that it is left up to the referee to toll the count as he "sees fit" - referee's "discretion".

In the Wilder fight and Ngannou fight, a full 23 seconds passed from the time Fury hit the deck until the fights were waved back on. In the Wilder fight, the protracted period involved the referee checking to see if Fury was fit to continue - there's a line when such checks go beyond their intended purpose and actually build themselves into a fighter's recovery time. What say you there?

Referees do forecast, that's what they are trained to do among other things - there is criteria that they defer to - or criteria that they are MEANT to defer to. You claimed that this isn't the case. You're wrong.

If I started with saying that Usyk was robbed of a KO, well, of course. Thats a completely acceptable introductory line - lol, the order of expression doesn't reflect the chronological order of analysis and conclusion. The evidence I've provided led me to that conclusion - evidence that I laid out. Yes, the trees and the forest, objectively and accurately identified, analyzed and concluded upon. No Edward Scissor handing, working back from a premeditated conclusion and trimming the hedges into nice heart shapes to suit my position.

The "pattern" I've adopted is properly assessing the subject and arriving at a very solid conclusion.

As to conflation, no, not me.

You've just now conflated a ROLE with automatic fulfillment of said ROLE. One's ROLE, in and of itself, does not suggest, by default, that one has fulfilled their ROLE. You've assumed that the ref's actions were context-driven simply because it is an idealized requirement and expected fulfilment of his ROLE.

I'm not and did not dismiss your opinion - I've addressed your opinions, but they are just opinions, and you haven't provided your own proofs as to why you think that the ref actually fulfilled his expected ROLE while I have actually done so in support of my conclusion.

 

Given my brief exposure to said poster, that's a perfectly accurate summation you've posted there. Well done.

 

Haha - good one. Very wishful. You weren't civil. If you have any doubt on that, let me say, IN KIND, I hope I didn't type out my last post too fast for you. Do you need another refresher on standing counts vs technical KDs? Yee haw Slow Draw McGraw!

Humor is a grand thing, isn't it?

 

The difference between me and you is I have no issues accepting when I was wrong.

I said standing 8 count and it wasn't, it was a fighter judged to be held up by the ropes preventing the knockdown.

That's the humility I talk about.

You incorrectly said I'd changed horses, I've proven beyond any reasonable doubt that not only is that not the case but that your argument was moot.

But no you didn't type it too fast for me, I was able to keep up, I just vehemently disagreed.

 

My bet slip from the fight says Yes.

 

Daniel Dubious was robbed of a TKO

This content is protected

 

Really?
Personally I have absolutely no idea if that would or wouldn't have been the case.
Could it also not be that if the ref called a count earlier, that Usyk would have more time to go for the KO rather than a count at the end of the round?
I don't know but was just looking at other scenarios based on what you wrote

 

Credit to him, it's a very accurate summary. I did accuse him of being confused.

I labelled Joshua as a low risk fight for Usyk, where they to have a third. I gave my reasons as AJ fighting at a very low level post Usyk (Franklin, Helenius, Wallin, Ngannou) whereas Usyk was fighting at a much higher level (Dubois and Fury).

He then kept bringing up my job, so I called him confused.

I also didn't get why he had such an issue with me labelling Joshua as a low risk fight for Usyk, I tried saying how AJ had lost his hunger and was operating at a lower level but he refused to accept my position, and I absolutely didn't get why so he's correct in saying I didn't understand him.

Do I consider myself clever? Of course I do. And so should everyone. I'd imagine he considers himself clever and you consider yourself clever.

So yes, excellent summary by him and I'm glad you agree.

 

He'd have likely taken less damage than the onslaught he otherwise received imo. But that's all speculation.

Remember Usyk had another 3 rounds after the knockdown to get a "KO'D" Fury down again, and he couldn't.

 

That's not entirely accurate by any stretch, and we both know that. though I did say from your posting that I felt you were someone who mixed with a younger age group which you agreed saying it was your job.
The smug want to get the last word in whether correct or incorrect was a bit of a give away. I left you posting how you thought I was confused again after I had to correct your mistake, but let you get the last word in as I had better things to do at the time

 

He wouldn't know what humility was if it came in the form of Daniel Dubios right hand and smacked him in the face.

I've been enjoying your posts this threads. Top stuff and keep it up.

 

@Pugguy

Oh dear. This exchange has indeed become very messy. How many layers of fallacious rabbit holes are you prepared to dig in order to avoid confronting the clear weaknesses in your case?

Your latest response continues to rely on speculative interpretations, but before we address the broader scope of fallacies in your argument, let me clarify a recurring misinterpretation on your part.

Your repeated insistence on explaining the phrase ‘as and when it suits him,’ as though it needed clarification, appears to be a thinly veiled ad hominem tactic, implying a lack of comprehension on my part. In reality, I fully understood your intended implication of bias from the outset. My reinterpretation of the phrase was deliberate---to contrast your speculative accusation of bias with the actual concept of discretionary, context-sensitive judgment. This repeated ‘explanation’ serves more as a rhetorical distraction than a meaningful addition to the debate, one of many diversions you’ve persistently employed.

It’s clear from your latest response that this debate has devolved into a cycle of misrepresentations and circular arguments---ones entirely created by yourself. Let’s outline the key logical fallacies you’ve committed throughout this debate, supported by specific examples:


Straw Man Fallacy

You have repeatedly misrepresented my arguments in an attempt to distort my points. Here are the clearest examples:

1. Misrepresentation of My Stance on Referee Discretion:
You’ve falsely attributed to me the stance that I defend all Referee decisions made under discretionary powers, suggesting, “

This content is protected

” My argument was focused on the specific, context-sensitive decisions in this fight, not a blanket defense of all Referee actions.

2. Framing My Analysis as Mere Opinion:
You claimed, “

This content is protected

” I presented an evidence-based analysis for why the Referee’s decisions were context-driven, not mere opinion, making this a mischaracterization that sidesteps the actual evidence.

3. Accusation of Treating Discretion as a Blanket Justification:
You implied that I consider Referee discretion as a universal justification, stating, “

This content is protected

” I never suggested this; rather, I argued that specific decisions made during the fight aligned with context-sensitive judgment.

4. Conflating the Referee’s Role with Automatic Fulfillment:
You asserted, “

This content is protected

” I based my analysis on the Referee’s specific, observable actions, not an idealized assumption. Misrepresenting my stance in this way avoids addressing my actual points.

5. Misrepresentation of My Position on Referee Consistency:
You incorrectly framed my argument as demanding perfect consistency, saying, “

This content is protected

” My point emphasized the need for context-driven officiating, not rigid consistency, but you distorted this to set up a false argument I never made.


Confirmation Bias

Your argument is steeped in confirmation bias, interpreting Referee actions through a fixed narrative of favoritism toward Fury. Key examples include:

1. Initial Claim of Being “Robbed of a KO”:
The assertion that Usyk was “robbed of a KO” framed the entire argument, interpreting every Referee decision as proof. This assumption itself reflects confirmation bias, as it presumes bias without examining context.

2. Selective Interpretation of Alleged Obstructions:
Claims that the Referee obstructed Usyk and assisted Fury back to his corner ignore alternative explanations, such as safety protocols and the chaotic nature of the fight, in favor of a biased conclusion.

3. False Parallel of the Long Count Analogy:
Using long count examples from unrelated fights implies a pattern of favoritism without establishing relevance to the Usyk/Fury bout, where no delayed count occurred.

4. Disregard for Counter-Explanations:
Alternative theories, such as the advantage Usyk gained from uninterrupted action, were ignored or misrepresented, reinforcing a selective interpretation without evidence.


False Equivalence

Your argument frequently relies on exaggerated or unrelated comparisons, creating false equivalencies. Examples include:

1. Long Count Analogy from Other Fights:
Comparing delayed counts in unrelated Fury fights to the Usyk/Fury bout where no long count occurred creates a misleading connection to support an unfounded narrative.

2. Equating Inconsistent Decisions with Bias:
Treating inconsistencies as favoritism overlooks the adaptive nature of officiating, which inherently involves real-time adjustments rather than uniformity.

3. Equating Minor Officiating Variances with Improper Conduct:
Treating minor variances in discretionary calls - such as the timing of knockdown rulings or the referee’s positioning - as though they are equivalent to serious instances of misconduct or bias.

4. Equating Referee Assistance with Favoritism:
Suggesting that helping Fury back to his corner indicates favoritism ignores this routine safety practice, creating a false equivalence to bias.


Circular Reasoning

Circular reasoning appears throughout the argument, where assumptions of bias are used to interpret Referee actions as biased. Examples include:

1. Claiming “Usyk was Robbed of a KO”:
Interpreting each Referee decision through the unproven assumption that Usyk was robbed creates a circular argument where the conclusion is used as evidence for itself.

2. Perceived Inconsistencies as Proof of Bias:
Labeling inconsistent calls as favoritism assumes bias without evidence, creating a circular logic loop.

3. Assuming Referee Obstruction Was Intentional:
Framing Referee positioning as intentional obstruction presumes favoritism to prove favoritism, rather than considering the pace and positioning of the fighters.

4. Misinterpreting Safety Protocols as Bias:
Assuming standard practices like assisting fighters indicate favoritism presumes bias in routine actions, creating a circular justification without substantiation.


Burden of Proof Fallacy

Your argument frequently shifts the burden of proof, expecting others to disprove bias rather than substantiating it. Key examples include:

1. Claiming Perceived Inconsistencies as “PROOF”:
Declaring inconsistencies as “PROOFs” without objective evidence improperly shifts the burden of proof, requiring disproof of speculative assumptions. Despite emphatically labeling these interpretations as “PROOFs,” no concrete evidence has been presented to substantiate them, relying instead on subjective interpretations.

2. Implying Favoritism through a Loaded Question:
Posing loaded questions about Referee actions suggests bias as an implicit assumption, expecting refutation without substantiating the claim. This shifts the burden by assuming favoritism without providing any supporting evidence.

3. Demanding Disproof of Alternative Explanations:
Requiring counter-arguments for each perceived instance of favoritism shifts the burden of proof, suggesting that subjective interpretations are valid unless disproven. This expectation improperly assumes unproven claims as facts, placing undue responsibility on others to refute unsubstantiated conclusions.



Your continued insistence on framing subjective interpretations as facts suggests a deep investment in your narrative, to the point where you’ve presented it as though it were an undeniable truth.

The repeated appearance of your flawed arguments across multiple logical fallacies highlights a consistent pattern of faulty reasoning, revealing a reliance on distorted narratives rather than objective analysis. Indeed, the pattern is so pervasive, I’ve not covered every instance of faulty reasoning - for the sake of brevity .

All in all, your repeated misinterpretations, selective presentation of “evidence,” and rhetorical diversions indicate a debate strategy more focused on defending a preconceived narrative than on engaging with the actual context and dynamics of the action.

It really isn’t a solid foundation for definitive assertions about bias, favoritism, or misconduct, and your belief that you’ve met the burden of proof is puzzling, given the clear absence of hard evidence.

In light of the lack of concrete, objective evidence supporting your categorical assertions, any further engagement would simply lead to more repetition of the same fallacies and misrepresentations. Given this, I see no value in continuing down this path. For all intents and purposes, this debate has reached its logical conclusion.

 

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing
We will never know, I'm just surprised you seem more certain than I would be.
Yes Usyk had another 3 rounds but Fury also with the later intervention had a full minute which he wouldn't have done if the intervention had have been earlier
So I wouldn't guess either way

 

Go back and read it whenever you want buddy. I said a third fight with AJ would be high reward low risk.

I'm glad you have better things to do.. salutations.

 

Fair enough. I don't think one minute of recovery is really an excuse though, not with three whole rounds.