Oh cmon... Anyone who knows how to score a boxing match knows that 115-111 card was completely unjustifiable. Even injecting significant bias I don't find it possible to get past 113-113. I can accept the 113-113 card, despite it being right on the limit of acceptable scoring - giving the current champion the absolute maximum benefit of the doubt very much is a thing, that's just the way it is. But 115-111 Wilder? GTFO. That's just straight up wrong. That's a card that was being cooked and then got completely exposed by the late KD's for the joke that it was to score it evens before that point. On paper that fight goes down as a draw, but let's not pretend it was actually a draw, it clearly wasn't - Fury clearly won that first fight and any unbiased observer with the first clue what they're talking about will tell you that in no uncertain terms.
Never said I agreed with 115-111 in Wilder's favor. I simply said there was nothing absurd in a draw. This has been debated to death and it's not even relevant to the overall discussion nor am I interested in rehashing it.
OP is right Fury didn't want the 3rd fight but it had nothign to do with tasting power or being scared.. He wanted that big money fight which Wilder has probs cost him.. He was forced to take it and came in like a guy who didn't care getting into a brawl with the guy he was scared of.. This version of Fury gave Wilder a life limiting beating pretty much walking tru and trading.. TBH Wilder may be lucky that a fully fit motivated Fury didn't turn up otherwise he still may be sleeping in a hopsital bed somewhere..
And yet you picked up on a guy saying he thought Fury won? Honestly, I do think the draw was absurd. Not because a draw card (113-113) was unjustifiable, because I can just about get there with some bias added into the mix - it's very generous, but I can just about see it. You'd have to get exceptionally lucky to get a draw out of that, and I'm not credulous enough to accept it in a fight as clear as that. Realistically a split-decision or even unanimous decision for Fury were the only correct outcomes, even if a draw card is (just about!) acceptable.
Boxrec disagrees with you. Repeating yourself isn't going to change history books. Might want to look up the word "reality" kid.
I just told you I don't feel like rehashing this discussion. It's more annoying than TKO6 and Pac vs Mayweather. This is the last thing I'll say: -Fury only landed a mere 13 more punches than wilder in the entire fight. -he only landed 7 more power punches -there were some rounds that were very close and neither guy completely controlled the action. In other words, if wilder had to separate 10-8 rounds he would only need to win a couple more to justify a draw. -speaking of 10-8 rounds, no Challenger in the entire history of boxing ever got knocked down twice in separate rounds and won a decision to win the championship. Ever. I made a whole thread on this and people kept fumbling over their words and trying to talk their way around it but the champion gets the benefit of the doubt when he is landing the more damaging blows and scored multiple knockdowns while constantly bringing the fight. Fury's face was a mess and he barely landed more punches. Shuffling around making goofy faces and doing flashy movements does not win you points. The stats tell the whole story.
In a funny kind of way, Deontay Wilder himself disagrees with you. You see, by accepting an unjust outcome as fact because that's how it's declared, your position is the exact opposite of the position that Wilder erroneously took when accusing Fury of having cheated in #2. The only real difference is that you're doing it in the face of fairly overwhelming evidence that Fury won, whilst Deontay's refusal to accept that he lost #2 was in the absence of any evidence to support his assertion.
Totally separate issue. The official verdict is that Wilder and fury 1 was a draw. You are free to disagree with this verdict but you used the word "reality" wrong because in "reality" fury did not beat him 3x. Fury won so "clearly" he changed trainers and chose to have more tune ups rather than going for an immediate rematch.
Just because it hasn't happened in the past doesn't mean it shouldn't have been in this case - I think it's pretty clear cut that it should. You're correct that some rounds were close, but they generally weren't even either - stats alone are deceptive in this case.
This is an entirely separate point. Wilder doesn't accept that the declared outcome on the night is settled fact and finito - I simply pointed out that you clearly disagree with him. Not exactly important, I just found it mildly amusing.
Again with this?! Fury changed trainers because he realised during #1 that Wilder was easy for him to beat with more aggression and that it would take robbery off the table if he brutalized Wilder.
