Fury Wilder III

Well on that logic nobody on the forum is allowed a negative opinion on anyone

 

Fought Ruiz in his own country but we didn't get to see what the officials and judges were like because he'd been spannered by round 7.

 

Parker fight dodgy ref
Takam, terrible home stoppage, granted AJ would have probably won on points
Ruiz 2 a ring the size of Saudi

So basically 3 of his last 6 fights

 

You must be trying to kid yourself.

Everyone knows that realistically (barring some sort of freak bout where Joshua doesn't land a punch) only one path to victory is going to be open to Usyk - to win by KO. That in itself is an enormous disadvantage that not only blockades particular possible tactics but adds a considerable amount of pressure.

On the other hand, Joshua has that comfort blanket of not having to chase a KO.

 

How was the ref dodgy in Parker fight? If your referring to the ref not stopping them from working on the sinside too quickly then Parker was getting better of inside exchanges in the early and AJnthe better of inside exchanges in the later rounds so that wasn't to the advantage of AJ.

Granted the Takam stoppage was premature but he about to dropped again as started wobble and legs had gone. In which AJ won every round.

Ruiz 2 - agreed to the size the ring. If opponent agrees to it contractually then he knows they can implement the size of the ring they wanted so Ruiz can't complain.

 

But we haven't seen evidence to support AJ has benefited from beneficial treatment unlike say Fury against Mcdermott and Wallin. Wilder vs Ortiz - 1.

AJ did try to gain more time against Ruiz in the first fight from a knockdown (probably thought he could get away with it) but the ref rightly wasn't having any of it.

 

Fury won 9/10 rounds against Wallin. Unless you're referring to the cut in which he still won comfortably with it. I'd understand if he was cut that bad and getting pummelled at the same time.

The ref jumped in every time Parker got in close to Joshua.

 

I agree with one of judges that had Wallin winning 4 rounds.

The cut however, if it wasn't so much riding on the Wilder rematch would have been stopped as it was terrible and have seen many fights stopped for much lesser cuts.

 

It's beneficial treatment in itself to box in a home arena, with tens of thousands of fans who have been fed Joshua this and that through the mainstream media and sports media, as well as all of the marketing exposure.

You talk about evidence but I do think your definition is amiss. Firstly, anyone with common sense can piece together the benefits of home advantage (least of which is geographically). Do you seriously think that we need "evidence" to accept that Joshua knows that he's going to be up on the cards barring any freak occurrence? Your "evidence" regarding a close McDermott bout and Wallin (where he lost no more than 3 rounds - it was clearly the right decision to let the bout go on) is no stronger than my appraisal.

The difference that you're ignoring is that Fury has won big bouts in Germany and America, when he was the underdog in both.

Joshua shat (Moderators - that is not evading the censorship function, it's your fault that shat hasn't been picked up) his pants against a morbidly obese midget.

 

Spot on.

It's like saying football teams don't want a home tie in cup draws, or home advantage second. Everyone wants home advantage.

 

The ref pretty much killed Parkers gameplan, he even let AJ call his own timeouts. It reminded me a bit of when Pulev beat Chisora, the ref pretty much took Dereks game away from him.

 

So by the same token, England will have no advantage playing at Wembley in the Euros? Home advantage is a well known and understood concept in sport. It's ridiculous to try and disregard it.

 

I fully agree.

 

The ref was awful that night. Well, awful to Parker at least, and to the fight as a spectacle. I was watching it at the time with a mate and we both said from the first round that the ref was spoiling the fight to the advantage of Joshua. Plain to see.

Called it home advantage, subconscious bias, or downright corruption, the only way Parker could have won was with a freak knockout. The cards were always stacked in Joshua's favour.

 

Yes. The only "silver lining" was that it was happening to Paint Dry Parker, who probably didn't have much ambition anyway. However, it was scandolous and it doesn't matter that it was Paint Dry Parker. He should've been given a fair chance and that is why I can't stand bad stoppages and the fanboy excuses afterward - "he was going to be stopped anyway". All boxers must be given a fair chance, especially considering some of the great comeback wins. If Fury was called off against Wilder, imagine how different the discourse would've been. "He wasn't right to continue", "he would've been knocked out seconds after" and "Wilder is simply too good for this version of Fury" etc.

That's why I can't understand the retrospective remarks regarding Fury Wallin and the eye. Yes, if it wasn't Fury and Wallin was the A-side, it would likely have been called off. But that doesn't make it right. Rules exist for a reason, to optimise respective operations. Rules are not set in stone and exempt from revision. This is why I don't agree with Mitch on this, because Fury won the fight and comfortably. What good would it have done to stop that? All boxers take risks and Fury was clearly prepared to go on, as was Vitali Klitschko against Lennox Lewis. Anyway, that's a different type of corruption to robbing a boxer on the cards, which is indisputably worse.