Was Usyk robbed of a KO (Video)

As an Usyk fan,I don't subscribe to the narrative that he was robbed of a KO

For all his faults,Fury has EXCEPTIONAL powers of recovery & it was the bell that saved him & with the minutes rest he recovered

If there would of been another 20 or 30 seconds left in the round then Usyk would've finished him

 

He didn't have any issues with gloves.

 

Oh okay so I just dreamed about a heap of folks crying about Hatton, the Hammer fight, Wilder, and some training partner.

Don't be such a fanboy you miss the point bro. Doesn't matter if you agree with them or not, they did cry about it.

 

I think the issue being pointed out is if the ref allowed him to land that last punch, his hand was raised already to punch, and the ref would not have been wrong to allow him to punch, then we don’t know if those powers of recovery would have had any effect. Obviously being at the end of the round was definitely advantageous to fury.

 

At that point Fury had fallen over, so it would be akin to allowing a shot on a fallen opponent which is not legal. Ref made the right call.

 

Folk can cry all they want, it doesn't substantiate their claims.

Gloves are inspected by the opposing team and officials. They're also sealed in front of them too.

 

He hadn’t fallen over just yet. You are allowed to hit someone on their way down. Right?

 

He had fallen into the rope fully and was caught.

 

Unintentionally making my point for me bro

We are not talking about whether or not it's a substantiated, we're talking about whether or not it's a concern that was raised.

Which is just an aspect of a conversation about why Fury's controversies are always handled in a vacuum and if any other are mentioned people act like it's just his mouth that gets him such criticism.

I didn't at any point say I believe or don't believe any of these, specifically, because y'all can not handle it. Shoot man, both youse really just saw the word gloves and wanted to pop off about your opinions on the matter rather than your opinions on the coverage of it.

 

You started with a vauge comment that turned out to have no substance. Don't be surprised when people call you out on it.

 

Calling me a Fury fanboy is quite funny looking at the fact I was bashing the guy all over that forum and actually can't stand him now.

What happened was, wilderretes were butthurt about Fury beating up their boy, so they were looking for excuses, even going back in time, trying to find dirt on him. Nobody talked about Fury's "floppy gloves" from the first Wilder fight, before that ass whooping from the rematch. Nobody talked about the Hammer when it happened either, because those watching the whole broadcast live saw that it was Fury's corner who asked the ref to check Fury's gloves. Sparring partner's story was a crack of shyte as well. Don't tell me you're taking these clowns seriously.

 

Bro you didn't read any context and came in half cocked. No reason to try to cover ass now.

You explain to me how I have been vague.

 

I'm just asking why the controversies are handled individually and without the context of the others.

 

@Man_Machine

MM -LOL, again, you've made sweeping and absurd statements/claims that absolutely don't fit the factual events being analyzed nor do they describe my end of the discussion.

Dare I say, you've become the Poster Boy for woefully applied logic concepts though you're trying very hard to "advertise" that you have intellectually applied them correctly.

Now you've thrown in Confirmation Bias into your argumentative melting pot. I'm surprised you haven't invoked terms such as Deductive, Inductive and Abductive Reasoning - whether they apply or not, they sound way cool also. Of course, I'm level-headed, you've just made/implied yet another false assertion - guilty of the very rhetoric you have unsuccessfully tried to project on to me.

I'm well aware of all these terms and definitions BUT also, I know how to apply them practically and correctly.

Did you actually properly address your proven disingenuous position re a clearly and easily understood expression (per its intended meaning) thereby lending to a needless protraction of discussion of same, your woefully flawed "logic" somehow wheeling you around to attribute that needless protraction to me and, by further false extension, claiming that I employed your own feigned misunderstanding as a diversionary tactic? Lol. No, of course you didn't.

Oh, and the cherry on top of your leaning tower of Pisa of "logic" was to suggest my repeated explanation, the need for which YOU created, was somehow an ad hominem attack on my part.

At any rate, by your own standard, you were guilty of Ad Hominem attack also - a point already made but another that you have ignored. Another diversionary and self-contradicting tactic on your OWN part? Yes, of course it is.

You DID truncate my words. Very much worth addressing. That you suggest that it is "hardly" worth addressing is simply because it upholds your disingenuous approach, and it impugns your position. Leaving "HIM" out does alter the meaning - which is exactly why you left it out. That you're trying to extricate yourself from this is a sign of desperation and a further example of your stoic persistence in being disingenuous.

Obfuscation? Lol. You did exactly that with your contrived "interpretation". Each and every time you persisted with that interpretation, your own obfuscation, I naturally had to re-explain it to you. It's gob smacking and wholly irrational that you can't even own that - and worse still, trying to claim that I am culpable for the fall out of your own obfuscation.

You shouldn't try and pretend now that, when all other rationalizations you have presented for "justification" and "good refereeing" have failed after being properly refuted, you've opted for the ultimate "safety net" of Discretionary Powers - the main and ill applied crux of your argument, the all-conquering exemption card, exactly as you have framed it. You even bailed on the valid observation of consistency or lack thereof. in deference to your preferred Black Hole, discretionary powers, that swallows everything around it - which totally bypasses due critiquing the actions of the ref in appropriate detail.

I didn't overweight my accent on YOUR deliberate and maintained misinterpretation of the meaning. I have covered off on plenty otherwise, and in actual, relevant detail. Many other points you have elected not to address. Another completely false assertion on your part.

Did you address that your "rationalization" for the ref assisting Fury part way back to his corner, that you tried to play off on grounds of safety protocol, was absolutely invalid and completely debunked by me? No, of course you didn't.

Did you properly examine the referee's actions and the context in which he carried out those actions? No. you didn't. You only sought to establish that the referee "did the right thing" - as per your very OWN Confirmation Bias. And that's a single point (you falsely claimed there were none) among many that I have knocked down, so you are still persisting in myriad false assertions that present as pure smoke and mirrors.

You haven't provided any "evidence" of the fallacies you've claimed - those claims certainly aren't anchored specifics or the true dynamic of this discussion. You might've just as well have typed them straight out from a textbook. Your adherence to the factual details of the case in point has been extremely poor and impractical. Again, you've added nothing in regard to the actual fight in last your post.

Circular reasoning? Which I have not been guilty of. Here's some ACTUAL examples of Circular Reasoning, which just might help you apply the label correctly and avoid you, yourself, being well guilty of circular reasoning in future: -
The referee could not and did not err or perform inconsistently under his discretionary powers because he has discretionary powers.

Your own disingenuous positions, penchant for talking in circles, throwing out any label you can hoping that it sticks and ultimate avoidance - are the very features that have stopped up the discussion.

But for ALL that, your own needless stuttering on my clear points, I would have already and also addressed the referee's treatment AFTER restraining Uysk and ruling a technical KD. From that very moment until the referee waved the fight back on, a total of 18 seconds had passed and the bell ending the round rang 1 second after the referee waved the fight back on - with Fury still clearly unsteady on his feet - which consequently saw the ref assisting him part way back to his corner.

Yes, we know, as you would misguidedly and dismissively frame it, under Discretionary Powers the ref was well within his "rights" to allow for such an extended period of time and therefore, because he had those discretionary rights, he did the "right" thing - yes, the essence of a circular argument/reasoning. Discretionary powers do give the ref the "right" but that "right" don't necessarily mean that the ref did the right thing, concepts that you have tried unsuccessfully to juxtapose whilst also inappropriately divorcing the due examination of consistency from the equation - only acknowledging and "selectively" getting on board with inconsistency to allege that it disadvantaged Fury.

Again, whether you admit to it or not, I have faithfully and properly analyzed the trees and have also joined the obvious dots to present the forest. Further, again, your argument has barely been tethered to or anchored in the case in point.

As exemplified, you're in no position to instruct anyone re methodologies, terms and definitions, fallacies and ultimately, how to present their argument or, in all pretension, determine their arguments to be invalid - not least for the fact that a good number of your own arguments have actually been proven to be invalid, not per false summary description, but during the course of the actual debate.

Lol, your concluding statement totally fell back on discretionary powers- period- which I said was the crux of your argument, which you tried to deny. Discretionary power being the circular answer to the separate question of whether the referee ACTUALLY did exercise sufficiently uniform and sound judgment in his calls or lack thereof - as he is expected to do under said authority.

That's WHY the comparisons I presented to test your rationale were indeed equivalent. They all involved actions/call made under the authority of discretionary powers - as per your position here, you rest your case on Discretionary Powers. Period. If you're uniform in your view, you would have no choice but to judge the referees' actions in the other cases to be acceptable -you simply didn't want to go there lest any variance in your treatment impugn your position here.

Of course, a rational case has been presented, with supporting evidence in support, to suggest that, at the least, deliberate or not, the ref acted inconsistently and improperly, lending to markedly inequitable officiating and greater advantage to one fighter, culminating in Usyk being denied of a KO/Stoppage that would've been realized under a more even handed and/or competent referee.

Lordy, my arguments have not been dismantled whatsoever. That is simply wishful thinking and, dare I say, obvious false advertising, strenuously repeated on your part.

 

You referenced me in reply to a post addressed to me. Not sure what you don't understand about that. I must live rent free in your head. I didn't prove your point. Merely stating that doesn't make it so. You have however proved my point - continually steering well clear of my specified example highlighting your own clear lack of humility. I haven't been debunked at all and there's only one poster I've engaged at any length. You're pro Fury, a die hard, you would like or agree with any conclusion that defends or promotes him - notwithstanding it's invalidity.