Fury vs Wallin - A side vs B side bias?

bet you justified mccloskey being stopped with that cut though that tiny graze
and your boy said it was right it was called off oops

 

I wonder if that area around his eye remains weak to be opened up in future fights.

 

If it had been stopped, I don't think there would have been much complaining. But it wasn't and I don't think that's necessarily the wrong decision either. We can perhaps say with the guide of retrospect that Fury was clearly OK to continue fighting. There was some dirty thumbing from Wallin too which makes me less sympathetic to the outcome.

Would it have been stopped if the roles were reversed? I think it's easy to assume yes, and I would probably lean that way myself. It cannot be stated beyond doubt though. The B side getting worse treatment than the A side is nothing new and nor will it ever go away

 

people going on about wallin opening a cut
like tko 6 did on vitali
shoe and the other foot and all
as and when the situation changes

 

It's funny that even after Wallin gave Fury some decent work Wilder was still terrified of him...wierd.

 

Of course there was bias.
But that doesn't mean it should have been stopped.

 

Can't believe this poll is even. No one's saying they should have stopped it, but if you are saying Wallin gets the same treatment had it been his cut your lying to yourself

 

Cut from a different cloth as in paper skinned coke heads?

 

Had the roles been reversed Wallin would have been badly cut, loosing on points and have the potential to take heavy punishment while his vision was impaired. In Fury's case he was badly cut but controlling the fight comfortably and well ahead on the cards. Two different perspectives the ref has to consider here it's not quite as simple as Fighter A and Fighter B.