Was Usyk robbed of a KO (Video)

Who knows
I would think a boxer being unable to unload on a hurt fighter stands a better chance of an inside the distance victory than if the opponent is given a minute to recover get their feet and senses back a bit and then likely to keep out of trouble a bit more especially if the count is at the end of the round giving even more than a minutes recovery but I'm no expert

 

I don't understand why the consistency of Fury's fights calls is not part of this conversation. The video is one thing, but criminy, no one?

Just seems like a lot of controversy for one career and every single time anything comes up it is in favor of Fury. That's odd to no one?

Most fighters do not have some win from their early career follow them around like it was a loss

Most fighters do not have any issues with equipment during a fight their entire career and if they do it's usually just once.

You know before Wilder and Usyk people gave Fury business over Pavik and Cunningham

This ref made the right call, that ref made the right call, seems like a lot of refs making a lot of calls for one career that is not even 40 fights deep.


Bet, I have not checked, but I bet even Rummy's channel reflects this juxta. Bet he has more videos rationalizing Fury fights and calls than any other boxer he has ever covered.


Seems like an elephant to me but I guess I'm alone in that and the next Fury controversy will also be discussed like as if its the only Fury controversy or like every other Fury controversy has something to do with something he said.

 

Yes. And it's obvious.

 

He was robbed of a KO.

 

@Man_Machine

If the discussion has become "messy", then it has only been by way of your own very design. No one could throw more "impressive" sounding yet completely ill-fitting debate terminologies into their argumentative melting pot as you have done. Basically, one could just as easily have typed out an abstract list from a glossary of terms that are completely irrelevant.

So, you're implying that you haven't tried to state or imply a lack of comprehension on my part? - otherwise, if you have (and you most definitely have), then, per your own standard, you will have to label that as your own ad hominem tactic also - Logic 101. Immediately, you've applied a double standard and contradicted yourself. A person will obviously repeat/clarify an otherwise common sense meaning when the other party repeatedly indicates/implies that they don't understand it - which is exactly the position you took. Perpetuation of the theme is totally on YOU, not me.

And NOW, you're admitting to deliberately "reinterpreting" what I said to opt for a much less likely intended meaning. Despite repeated clarifications, YOU "reinterpreted" over and over; you well and truly locked yourself in. So, you've admitted to assuming a disingenuous position, thereby needlessly protracting discussion of a simple and easily understood phrasing to suit yourself. Yet, you're inexplicably attributing that protraction to me, labelling as it as both a diversionary and ad hominem tactic.

So, atop your maintained, disingenuous interpretation, you built a false argument by suggesting that my phrasing exactly described referee discretion, as properly understood and executed. Did someone mention Straw Man? Lol, I have not been guilty of same at all, but you have. It was obvious that you were trying to improperly twist my words. You might think your "big reveal" to be clever and some sort of revelation, but it wasn't. You actually just shot yourself in the foot -

Hey, you also quoted me, deliberately truncating my words for distorted effect. I basically said AS AND WHEN SUITS HIM - key word HIM, read: not suiting the situation or context. In your quote, you twisted that to AS AND WHEN SUITS - suits what? Big difference. You know that. Another example of your disingenuous approach to discussion.

As to the rest..., well I could easily counter and refute every point down the line. I have correctly interpreted, replied to and related your position re ref's discretionary powers. You rigidly applied the concept, in its own right, with little or no deference/reference to the actual events in this case. Given same, you should've been able to apply the same rigid interpretation to other examples of referee's acting under their discretionary powers.

Basically, under those powers, without due critique, you were permitting a cart blanch approach by the ref and merely assuming that a ref has acted properly in reaction to the events/context. There have been no false equivalences whatsoever - but I have highlighted the lack of versatility in the position you established for yourself. Tbh, it could be argued that, at times, one might not know what fight you were even talking about, given how little you have been on actual detail and your failure to tether your argument to the actual events of this fight.

I'll highlight another one of your absolutely irrational assertions, which clearly highlights your own bias in this discussion. The referee improperly assisted Fury part way back to his corner. Are you implying that you are not aware that a fighter is required to return to his corner under his own steam? Yes, I think you are aware of that. I presented concrete evidence - as I've done on all points. That was a rule breach and, of course, it could be proposed to have been a show of favoritism. Yet, you chose to argue the point.

You've made the reach of all reaches in your attempt to play the "safety" card - which of course is not at all applicable in this case. Had the fight been stopped, yeah sure, the ref by all means could assist Fury back. Small problem was the fight was still actually on. Also, given that the referee elected not to stop the fight - thereby implying that he deemed Fury fit to continue - then why would the ref have any such safety concerns? Your position on this point, as your position has been on many other points, is tainted, limited in its scope and illogical.

As to favoritism. Before concluding motive, there are multiple points during the round in which the inconsistent actions of the ref. manifestly and inequitably gave advantage to one fighter much more than the other. No question. Those points in the fight are actually THE evidence that can feed into the proposition of possible, deliberate favoritism. Here again, you failed to properly examine the evidence. Re obstruction, you chose to generalize and play that off as happenstance positioning of the ref - with absolutely no meaningful deference/reference to the actual vision. I've broken down the vision meticulously to support my opinion.

There is material evidence of Fury being advantaged multiple times by the referee's notably inconsistent actions. The ref materially obstructed Usyk at least twice - interrupting his assault. That's an irrefutable fact. In the very first instance, the ref's "positioning" saw him actually move out of position in order to "move in" and lay hands on Usyk ONLY, allowing Fury to teeter back, out of range. Later, his "positioning" saw him hanging close to Usyk ONLY, not Fury, before seeing him move out of position AGAIN and directly into Usyk ONLY, impeding the path toward Fury - that path was obvious, and a competent ref would've/should've recognized it.

So, so much more to easily knock down...but the pattern you've established for yourself is one of complete avoidance and actually talking yourself around in circles rather than debating legitimately relevant points. As I said, without any justification otherwise, you've tried to dictate and/or shrink the parameters for discussion to suit yourself and your own biased position. So yes, your end of the debate has finished with a quite a number of illogical conclusions and self-contradictions...and that has played no small part in this discussion having become extremely tedious.... Anyway, all's fair in love and energized debate. No hard feels.

 

Luf - you did switch horses. I proved it beyond a doubt. Humility? You completely glossed over your error "or whatever we want to call it".

 

Luf - I agreed with the post I agreed with. Not your post above. Just straightening you up in your saddle.

 

After inappropriately referencing a ban, let it be known that, with no actual points in tow, you are STILL trying to troll and bait by chiming in on a response addressed to me. Wow.

I know what humility is. It would've/could've been you admitting that you were wrong, not I, as to a material fact (not opinion) re the first AJ - Usyk fight - but that was something you couldn't bring yourself to. As to admitting errors, I have, as and when applicable, they simply haven't been applicable in any of my exchanges with you.

 

I wasn't addressing you buddy.

And as usual you prove my point with your lack of humility. You've already been thoroughly debunked by numerous posters here.

 

But you didn't though, I have broken it down as much as I can by literally posting the exchange.

If by glossing over you mean directly addressing, then yeah sure.

You've been thoroughly bested here. At this point it just feels cruel.

 

I agreed with the post you agreed with, which is not the the post above.

Try to read it again.

 

Opinions are like arseholes everyone has them.

Anyone thinking there opinion has " beaten" somebody else's opinion is an attempt to get out of a debate they can't handle.

Try being a man and going to an actual boxing gym and beating somebody in real life, tough guys.

 

What do you mean by issues with equipment?

 

Gloves

 

There are no hard feelings either way but you have become 'The Poster Boy for Fallacious Reasoning' and your effort here has been the furthest thing from "Logic 101".

I had no intention of responding again but some of what you have posted in response to me listing your fallacy-fest is quite funny and just about worth addressing.


Regarding:

You have exemplified each and every one of the fallacies cited in my previous response to you. They are on record and verifiable as such - I have even provided quotations as reference points to the examples of your multiple Straw Man arguments.

I understand why you have felt the need to dismiss them wholesale - because wholesale in volume they are.


Regarding:

With you being known to me as one of the more level-headed posters I have chatted with before, it's hard to know what to make of what you've posted above.

Given the extent to which this particular point has been discussed already, it's puzzling why you've chosen to latch onto a single word and inflate its significance far beyond what is warranted. You've taken my use of 'reinterpretation' and spun it into an entire narrative, treating it as though it were a critical admission rather than what it actually was - a minor clarification in service of an alternative, context-sensitive perspective.

This tactic of isolating and exaggerating specific terms rather than engaging with the broader substance of the argument is precisely the sort of rhetorical maneuver that detracts from genuine debate.

From the outset, I've maintained a single, consistent counterpoint. I didn't shift or alter my position; rather, I presented an alternative perspective that highlighted the standard role of referee discretion as an essential part of officiating. The ongoing need to clarify this arose only because you repeatedly chose to misrepresent it, framing my argument as if it were an endorsement of your accusation of bias, which it clearly wasn't.

Your claim that I constructed a 'false argument' is entirely unfounded. Even a cursory review of our earlier exchange shows that I directly addressed your implied bias by emphasizing the principle of referee discretion - a fundamental aspect of officiating. My response was not a distortion but a legitimate, context-sensitive rebuttal.

For example, when you used the phrase 'as and when it suits him,' I pointed out that this wording aligns with the very definition of discretion. The referee's job is to adapt decisions based on the context of the fight, not to adhere rigidly to an imagined set of criteria detached from the real-time dynamics in the ring.

Here's what I originally wrote:

Given this, your accusation of a 'false argument' simply doesn't hold. It appears you've misconstrued a valid counterargument as a misrepresentation because it challenged your speculative narrative - likely to avoid addressing it in full (yet another Straw Man with a dash of Red Herring thrown in for good measure ). The only thing 'false' here is your attempt to dismiss my response without engaging with its actual implications.

Moreover, it's quite telling that you were likely aware of what my argument represented from the start, yet chose to repeatedly obfuscate and now construct a rant based on a selective misinterpretation. At this stage, it's clear that your response is the one that's truly disingenuous, wouldn't you agree?'


Regarding:

Your accusation that I deliberately truncated your words for effect is hardly worth addressing, especially given my clear explanation just above.

Even putting that aside, adding the word 'him' doesn't change the meaning in the way you suggest; it was obvious that your implication was about the referee acting according to his own preferences rather than based on context or established rules. This minor addition does not alter the essence of your accusation of bias.

My response engaged directly with the core implication of your statement. Focusing on such a perceived technicality is just another attempt to deflect from the actual substance of the debate. By fixating on this minor distinction rather than engaging with my point about the standard discretionary role of the referee, you only underscore the weakness of your own position.


As for:

Along with your 'so much more to easily knock down...' remark, it should be evident that you haven't successfully refuted a single point. In fact, you haven't knocked anything down at all. Instead, you've only added to your list of logical inconsistencies and have repeatedly avoided engaging with the fundamental core of the counter-argument.

I have no doubt you could 'easily' continue with your parade of Straw Man arguments, Confirmation Bias, False Equivalences, and so on. However, it's precisely this tedious approach that signals the end of any meaningful debate. I've already dismantled your initial assertion---well before you began shifting the goalposts in an attempt to salvage your argument.

Therefore, I stand by my position:

Usyk wasn't robbed of a KO.
There's absolutely no rational case to suggest otherwise.
The Referee clearly has the discretionary right to make that call.


PS: Material evidence does not constitute Proofs, something you were so ardently insisting you had provided. I trust that you now recognize the distinction. Assertions based on selective interpretations are not the same as definitive proof, no matter how forcefully they're presented.