If Wallin had been the one with those 2 cuts instead of Fury, would the fight have been allowed to go the distance?
I said this in another thread. The answer is no but it’s irrelevant anyway. Fury came through and it proved to be the right decision.
The same people who call favouritism on this are probably right but they are also the same people who argue who is the A side and B side and who deserves what cut (pun intended).
The fight should have been stopped and a TKO win awarded to Wallin however In the end the result turned out best for both fighters as Wallin earned respect and Fury has kept his record.
I'm not so sure. It would have been viewed as lucky, sometimes respect means more than a victory but from a business perspective yes. He would have the WBC 'Maya' and the mythical Lineal title. Fury could have only prayed the Lineal gods order an immediate rematch.
Fury would have finished him pretty quickly or he would have quit... No shame it was a very bad cut..
You've got to apply common sense though as a ref / doctor. Who would be more likely to absorb more punishment? Would Wallin have been as aggressive & effective as Fury was? Or would he have gone into a shell and been battered?
Refs job unis to protect a fighter. It's only natural if someone knows you can take more punishment than a normal boxer and still do the business that when such situations arise you get benefit of the doubt. Happened when Groves had Frich badly hurt in their first fight and happens often.
This. Fight defo would've been stopped if Wallin had the same cut but Fury's clear win vindicated the action continuing. Also, this is why you sign big contracts when they come your way. Nobody ever went too far in the sport without politics on their side somewhere along the line.
