Faultier stoppage: Joshua's TKO over Takam or Wilder's TKO over Duhaupas?

Judges had it that way because they were favoring the hometown fighter = Wilder. In reality, that fight was dead even.

Wilder was landing many many punches on the arm of Duhaupas. And pro boxing isn't based on quantity of punches landed alone. Quality of punches has a precedence over quantity in the pros.

Every punch Duhaupas landed, inflicted more damage on Wilder than the 3 or 4 punches Wilder landed (because Duhaupas proved to be the more powerful puncher in that fight).

Duhaupas had Wilder running scared for the whole fight = controlled ring generalship.

The fact that the hometown judges had it that wide, doesn't mean they are correct. Judges have been exposed more than once, especially hometown judges favoring the home fighter of being bias.

 

1) Joshua dropped Takam once. Wilder couldn't even drop Duhaupas once.

2) Joshua was barely at all damaged from any legal punches from Takam. Whilst Wilder had a black eye caused by getting hit from Duhaupas.

3) Duhaupas won multiple rounds against Wilder and the fight was close to, if not dead even at the time of the premature stoppage. Whilst Joshua was way ahead against Takam.

So in what Universe was Joshua's stoppage over Takam worse?

 

So far, you've yet to prove you're opinion is superior to mine. Ad Hominem attacks only make your points appear inferior. Ad Hominem attacks warrants greater reason for banning for posters like you.

I've utterly debunked each and every one of your point. So now you have to resort to personal attacks because you are incapable of addressing my points in a logical manner.

FACT is, the fight was DEAD EVEN for reasons stated. Both inflicted damage on each other and neither guy TOTALLY dominated for the fight to be considered one-sided or a beat down by either guy.

 

I just don't see it that way!

Duhaupas made Wilder miss his last 2 punches before the premature stoppage. Takam also made Joshua miss his last 2 punches.

And

Duhaupas, nor Takam were throwing any punches when they were both stopped.

So I'd like to know where this 'Duhaupas was more vulnerable' idea coming from.

 

My points are based on logic. Maths isn't the only subject where objectivity and logic exist.

I don't need math to deduce that a guy (Duhaupas) who gave his opponent a black eye and damaged his opponent more (Wilder), was in better condition during his fight than another boxer (Takam) who barely inflicted any damage on his opponent (Joshua).

 

None of this CHANGES the fact that Duhaupas gave Wilder a black eye with legal punches and suffered 0 knockdowns.

Meanwhile,

Takam suffered a knockdown against Joshua and failed to inflict any damage on Joshua with legal punches.

Or

Takam was at a worse state against Joshua when the fight was stopped, than Duhaupas was against Wilder when their fight was stopped.

OPINIONS don't change facts! And foolish opinions will only expose fooling individuals.