I bet you are still watching repeats of this fight until Bluffer announces Fury as the winner - it was a DRAW
He has valid points, can't disagree, but still think any tactical disagreements like that should stay between the training team, for unity if nothing else. Just think it's a bit snide of Freddy to belittle a young trainer and colleague, still trying to cut his teeth in the game, especially after a job well done IMO.
He’s not sneaking rounds though, Tony, he’s dictating the fight, he’s in charge...it might only be 7-5 in shots landed but he’s demonstrating ring generalship, defence & effective aggression. Almost everyone associated with boxing from ex fighters, promoters (even Hearn), fans, journalists...even you mate, said that Fury won. Surely that’s ‘convincingly & unequivocally’ winning rounds. Obviously not to the 2 judges. Wilder was baffled in that ring, he didn’t have a clue how to wrestle control of that fight. He couldn’t cut the ring off effectively, he was made to miss loads, Fury’s movement and feints stopped him throwing...that’s another demonstration of ring generalship & defence. It’s subtle at times but if you know your boxing (like judges are supposed to do) then it stands out a mile.
It's this whole mantra the Fury's have about just doing enough to win. It's like the guy that always aims to just hit 50% or whatever the passing mark is on his exams then get's a question he can't answer and he goes under. Not a good attitude to have.
I don't think it's 'just doing enough' but More a case of risk management. Why bother to take a chance offensively when you can convincingly win every round beyond reasonable doubt. It's simply reckless and not worth it especially given the financial rewards at stake. Fury's formula works and Freddy should keep his mouth shut. Maybe he could learn a thing or two from Davidson given his recent run of form.
Because he can't win every round beyond reasonable doubt. I'm still genuinely baffled by this idea that he does. He wins rounds with very little action and barely any shots landed. He hit Wilder thirteen times more than Wilder hit him across twelve rounds and was down twice and it's an Ali-like masterclass? I just don't buy it.
Do you think ring generalship, effective aggression and so on are more, equal or less important than landing punches?
Yes, absolutely. Boxing is scored on all these factors equally. If you’re landing lots of shots on your opponent then you’re demonstrating ring generalship and effective aggression. It tells its own story. If a round is 7-5 on punch stats, then these other scoring aspects take more prominence. Wilder was made to miss lots, so whilst he showed aggression, it wasn’t effective whereas Fury demonstrated defence. If you keep making a fighter miss, you’re in control. So just to reiterate, there’s a delicate interplay between the different scoring aspects.
Irrevalent. Fury beats him on punch stats and all the other judging criteria. You're flogging a dead horse with this one.
I'm making a slightly different point here. Roach is asking Fury to be more aggressive and land more punches. As a comparison, in 24 rounds against Klitschko and Wilder combined, he landed 170 shots. Lennox Lewis landed 195 in his second fight alone against Holyfield. In the first fight he landed 348. In eight rounds against Tyson he landed 193. Of course opponents will differ and affect shots landed, but if your game plan revolves around landing so few shots, then there will be close rounds, and you're taking a risk on not being given them. That's what has happened.
Fury and Lewis are a different style of fighter. I understand your point but what’s happened is corrupt judging much like the first fight between Lewis and Holyfield.
i'm not a huge fan off punch stats its just someone elses opinion as we have seen many times at the Olympics etc punches land don't get scored and vice versa. Same with the pro's Clean effective punching should be the thing to look for but in close fight, ring general ship, defense are all judge -able qualities
Granted, there is a higher risk for discrepancies in scoring if you are a Lower volume puncher. However, when you are still landing more punches AND beating another fighter on Ring generalmanship, effective aggression and defence, theargument becomes redundant. The blame, and rightly so, should fall on the judges.
That’s how Fury fights though , how much stick do you think Davison would have got if he’d have advised him to do something he’s hardly ever if ever done . He’d have been getting absolutely slaughtered that it cost Fury a win. I don’t think Roach has done himself any favours saying what he said.