Fury vs Usyk was a 1 point fight either way

His scorecard is fine. No one should take anything you post seriously. You've proven your stupidity many times. Only a moron believes the world is flat.

Most people think Usyk clearly won, and most people do not believe the world is flat.

https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/globeheads-wheres-the-curve.680806/

 

Good that there was AI scoring the fight, and actually showed who knows a thing of how Boxing work and actually being unbiased.

As my scorecard is a truly representative of what actually happen, and not being influenced by the paid actors - commentators.

You also claimed something which was a complete lie, so i corrected you.
Sorry if my "tone" was harsh.

 

I had him on ignore since long time. I sometime unignore people to give them second chance, but then it comes Canelo - Bivol, and then i just lost it and ignore him again, after his conspiracy theory and explaining how Canelo won that fight. After that fight nothing would amaze me with that individual ... But he managed to do it today. Claiming Fury won the first round and was the clear Ring Generalship, cause he was showboating. Can you just imagine how dumb you have to be to even say that?

I'm almost certain that he is American, and because Fury beat Wilder, he jump on Fury bandwagon in order to safe face for the Bionce. Or maybe he have fetish for PED fighters, who knows.

 

I think my scorecard was identical to Chris Mannix's. Think it came out at 115-112. I could see 116-111, but anything more than that does seem biased. I've seen a lot of people score the third for Usyk, which would give him 116 points, but I think I had Fury 4-2 up after the sixth. But anyway, 118-110 is a stupid scorecard, by the most obnoxious, monotonous, patronising, rude, arrogant poster on this site. At least when someone like, say, the mod CST produces a scorecard you think is outlandish (and he does have some corkers), he'll back it up, at length, with solid evidence based on his pretty much encyclopedic knowledge. Losh posts like a 14 year old on 4chan. Unpleasant person.

 

This ladies and gents is what we call a "sore winner"

 

115-112 Usyk

 

I signed up to reply to you personally because I've seen these types of AI statistics posted before, and obviously the usual CompuBox numbers and how people use them as though they point to an outright winner and somehow prove or disprove someone's opinion on a fight, yet although they can be somewhat useful, they don't show the entire picture, and they're also very subjective in ways, downright misleading, and extremely vulnerable to error, especially in close fights.

For instance, the AI statistics that you link show attributes for 'pressure' and 'aggression', but how is that determined, and do they consider all types of pressure and aggression to be equal? because there's obviously a huge difference between a fighter being effective in their pressure and aggression versus being ineffective. Take, for instance, a fighter like Floyd Mayweather, who obviously has a very defensive style and is someone who often likes to use counter punches and who likes to frustrate and lure his opponent in to take advantage of them using his superior speed, footwork, and boxing skills. Yet this obviously doesn't seem to be considered, and that's a massive flaw already in these types of systems and their analysis, where a fighter like Floyd would be incorrectly punished for simply being on the backfoot, even though such a thing obviously plays to his advantage and nullifies his opponent. There's also so many other factors that they simply don't even consider, like the types of skillsets a fighter is showcasing, their ring generalship, their defense, the control they have over the fight and whether or not they're the ones setting the pace of the fight, etc.

There's just so many different factors that are very subjective in their viewpoint that these types of systems cannot analyze effectively, or at all, and therefore it's a mostly pointless endeavor. Even the punch stats, though useful, are misleading as well, because for starters, if you know about the CompuBox system, it's very low-tech; it's basically just two guys at the side of the ring, with a set of buttons that they manually press, with each one of them watching one of the two fighters and determining using only their eyes whether or not a fighter landed a jab, missed a jab, landed a power shot, or missed a power shot. It's basically as technically advanced as a horse and carriage, and really is no better than you yourself being sat at home, counting the punches yourself on television, with your limited perspective, and not being able to see things in slow motion or from different angles. If anything, the ring-side CompuBox operators are at an extreme disadvantage because they can easily be caught up in the commotion of what's going on ring-side, the noise of the crowd, and the various other distractions.

The same goes for these AI systems, which, although sounding very sophisticated in their nature, are actually very prone to error and can't accurately determine whether or not a punch actually landed or not. And of course, not all punches are equal, and that's another problem. How are you determining whether a punch is effective or not? Obviously, a glancing swipe to the chest is nowhere near the same as landing an uppercut directly on someone's chin. Likewise, how do you even determine the power of a shot or which fighter is hitting the other the hardest? You really can't when a fight is close, and you can only really do this when a fight is very obviously one-sided and a fighter is taking obvious punishment.

So yeah, for you to just laugh and completely dismiss what someone is saying and link them to rather bogus statistics isn't fair and doesn't prove anything about the fight. If anything, it just shows your own ignorance. Boxing can be very subjective, it's why you need three judges, and although some fights have very obvious and clear winners, this fight really was not one of them. Besides the 9th round, where Tyson was obviously hurt, the fight was extremely close, and you can easily make a case for either fighter winning it, so if the OP believes Tyson won, it's a fair assessment, and he's entitled to his opinion. I mean, if you really believe that Usyk won so heavily, are you going to put your money where your mouth is and make a substantial bet on the rematch if it happens? Because I know I wouldn't do that.

 

My scorecard basically same as your assessment, with 2, 7, 12 even (I don't have an eye for fine margins!.) Only difference is I gave Usyk the 3rd.

 

I'm not reading this.
I don't use AI to score a fight. I have my own eyes. What AI is a straight up numbers, a Statistics thats either help or hurt your case.
As far as how AI works in the boxing, there is a site, you can go on and read it, and they explain everything. And they have a very detailed statistics for punch landed, Impactful punches and very detailed one where punches landed, etc, etc.

But for people that are wondering and don't want their time being wasted, on short, there is cameras all around the rings that AI is using, so whether punch landed, the impact of the punch and so on, is going to be 99% correct.
In that department they are million years ahead of compubox, which is 2 people pushing a button, without being sure if a punch landed or not.
So it's good that before talking nonsenses, you check the facts and then start saying that AI is accurate or inaccurate, cause for punches landing, and most importantly for impactful punches landed it's the most correct thing we can use, and sure more accurate than your or mine eyes.
If it has flaws, this flaws apply for both fighters.

The fight wasn't close, Usyk won clearly 9-3. People who disagree fine, but learn what Boxing criteria of scoring fights is.

Punches, clean punches, eye catching punches, Effective Aggression, Pressure, Defense, Ring Generalship. And for your surprise, outside of Round 5 and 6, this was all on Usyk. ALL on it.
11 Round finish with a huge Left Straight that hurt Fury. This alone wins the Usyk round, and before that he outlanded Fury already, but that sealed it.

Usyk lead the fight, and make Fury fight his fight, this alone shows who should have get the nods in the close rounds. Fury was on the backfoot, and constantly on the ropes being pressured by Usyk.
Showboating like a WWE star, doesn't give you points.

And lastly the UK viewers and the UK studio of Sky Sports has it 116-111 for Usyk, which is telling you a story. They were all biased UK people .... And can you please leave me alone, as i said i wanna rest from the forum, before i get banned.

 

Absolutely, 115 -112 is the absolute closest score possible, I had it wider as well

 

Shadow alt? Can't think of a lot of posters who write so many words to say absolutely nothing.

Everything you've questioned is explained on deepstrike's website.

 

I had it 5-3 fury going into the 9th which changed it all. Uysk the 10th, fury the 11th so it was a draw on my card going into the last which I gave fury but had no problem seeing uysk win cos it was close rounds.

I've watched it twice since and have it uysk by 1 twice and draw once.

Pretty fair result in my eyes.

 

Well if you're not going to even read what people have to say in reply to you, then why are you on a forum that's meant for discourse? It seems a pretty silly stance to be honest, and a rather pathetic way to pretend that you're somehow automatically correct, when you're just using ignorance and avoidance to attempt to refute people. I already spoke about the AI too, and I mentioned reasons as to why it's flawed, and why it will always be flawed, unless you can give it actual intelligence so it can form opinions over the subjective elements that I mentioned. Also you claim that the fight wasn't close, and that Usyk 'clearly' won 9 out of the 12 Rounds, yet all three of the professional judges had Tyson winning up to and including Round 7. And Usyk actually only would have won the fight from Round 10 onwards based on the judges scorecards. So it clearly wasn't as clear as you claim, otherwise that wouldn't have happened, unless you believe they were somehow compromised or can't do their job, or are bias, like you seem to believe the TV broadcasters are, just purely based on their nationality of course