Deontay Wilder v Tyson Fury - December 1st

Morrison J

Wilder Points

walshb wrote: »

Only went distance once and clearly won....

Then the draw from last week full distance...

Point: I think vs AJ we will see a clear gap between them should the fight go on and on through the rds....AJ clearly superior to Wilder...

Stiverne isn't world class.

I said favourable cards aside. 90% of people would say he lost on Saturday. 90% of people would also say he was behind against Ortiz. The cards were in his favour in both of those fights.

The AJ fight could easily be tentative as **** for the first four rounds and let people talk themselves into saying Wilder won the majority of them. Then a knockdown down the stretch and Wilder can wrongly get it on the cards.

If I was told the cards were guaranteed to be completely fair I'd say Wilder would need a KO to beat the likes of Parker, Whyte, Povetkin etc. I'd be ultra-confident he'd get the KO but he'll definitely need it. He's not going to outbox these guys. He's not a good boxer.

Anyway, I don't see Joshua-Wilder going the distance. Both too hittable, both too vulnerable and both very good punchers.

walshb

Wilder Points

Morrison J wrote: »

Stiverne isn't world class.

I never said he was. I just made the point.....

AJ will win barring the KO...

Fury can also win the rematch, barring the KO, which I think he does not avoid...

walshb

Wilder Points

Morrison J wrote: »

If I was told the cards were guaranteed to be completely fair I'd say Wilder would need a KO to beat the likes of Parker, Whyte, Povetkin etc. I'd be ultra-confident he'd get the KO but he'll definitely need it. He's not going to outbox these guys. He's not a good boxer.
.

But you usually argue almost any card that is close or very close that goes to a fighter that you backed against. That's not a criticism, just an observation. It's like you are on conspiracy alert all the time...

Nobody can guarantee a boxing card to be completely fair. It's illogical, because what is fair to one person is unfair to another and so on......it's the inherent subjective nature of the sport.

Take Ward-Kovalev 1 and 2....both suited you because you were all Ward in those fights....I thought SK deserved fight 1, and was jobbed in fight 2. I am far from alone in this view. But hey, it's boxing. It doesn't always have to be robberies and corruption. Ward got fight 1, and with 3 U.S. judges sure who's surprised.......Jobbed in fight 2, with a U.S. referee making the call.

Then Canelo/GGG 1 and 2 and you were all for the robbery and corruption. Why? Because your man, GGG was on the "wrong" end of the scores.

What even is fair in sport like boxing that is so much based on human interpretation?

Morrison J

Wilder Points

walshb wrote: »

But you usually argue almost any card that is close or very close that goes to a fighter that you backed against. That's not a criticism, just an observation. It's like you are on conspiracy alert all the time...

Nobody can guarantee a boxing card to be completely fair. It's illogical, because what is fair to one person is unfair to another and so on......it's the inherent subjective nature of the sport.

Take Ward-Kovalev 1 and 2....both suited you because you were all Ward in those fights....I thought SK deserved fight 1, and was jobbed in fight 2. I am far from alone in this view. But hey, it's boxing. It doesn't always have to be robberies and corruption. Ward got fight 1, and with 3 U.S. judges sure who's surprised.......Jobbed in fight 2, with a U.S. referee making the call.

Then Canelo/GGG 1 and 2 and you were all for the robbery and corruption. Why? Because your man, GGG was on the "wrong" end of the scores.

What even is fair in sport like boxing that is so much based on human interpretation?

Thats an outrageously small sample size to make such claims but anyway, you've obviously forgotten how things went over time.

Ward-Kovalev 1 was a close fight which Ward dominated in the second half. I would've had zero arguement if Kovalev got the nod. Ward got it with the three judges having it the exact same as I had it, Ward by a point. What am I meant to argue here? Another case of the A-side getting the nod maybe but Ward never has and never will make people money. I don't see any corruption there. Completely different scenario to Canelo-GGG for example. I remember the reaction to this result being far more mixed than Canelo-GGG 1 too. Lot of people screaming robbery but a lot of people saying Ward close. I remember Paulie Malignaggi having it to Ward by 3 or 4 rounds on the TV broadcast. It wasn't anywhere near as black and white as GGG-Canelo 1.

The second fight was bad refereeing. I said that at the time. I said that Kovalev was never comfortable and was fishing for phantom low blow calls all night so I struggled to have much sympathy for him. Never said I agreed with the ending though. Feel free to look back on my posts if needed.

The first Canelo/GGG fight was pure corruption. I don't hide that. Canelo has a resume riddled with favourable cards. Not a massive coincidence that he's the biggest cash cow in the sport. Adelaide Byrd's card went beyond the "subjective nature of the sport". It wasn't subjective that GGG won more than 2 rounds in that fight. It was clear to absolutely everyone in the world bar the one person who's actually paid to do the job. Same with CJ Ross' scorecard in Canelo v Mayweather. It's not subjective that Caenlo did or didn't win 6 rounds. He just clearly didn't. No excuse for that card either.

I didn't scream robbery once in their second fight. Close fight that I thought GGG edged but had no problem that Canelo got the nod. The A-side cash cow predictably got the nod but GGG didn't do enough/make it clear enough.

Anyway I could flip this straight back at you. You picked Kovalev and took his side after both fights. You picked Canelo and took his side after both fights. You picked Froch and always say the stoppage in the first Groves fight was fair, you picked Garcia to beat Porter and said Garcia clearly had the better of it. You've got some form yourself tbf.

walshb

Wilder Points

You’re missing my point. It’s not what sides are picked. It’s labeling fights corrupt and judges corrupt when the side you pick loses on a close fight..

You seem to think so many close fights are corrupt based off who you think wins...

It’s the vibe you give off...not digging you for that, btw.

Morrison J

Wilder Points

walshb wrote: »

You’re missing my point. It’s not what sides are picked. It’s labeling fights corrupt and judges corrupt when the side you pick loses on a close fight..

You seem to think so many close fights are corrupt based off who you think win...

Right, but you just gave me an example of one fight that I ever labelled corrupt. You're going to need more than that to back up your point surely. Can you name more? There was a number of fights in the Olympics that I said were corrupt too. I wasn't heavily invested in Joe Joyce's gold medal fight to be fair. I was just calling it as I saw it.

If the house fighter has some money making potential he's going to get the benefit of the doubt in close fights. That's the way boxing is and its not corruption. It's when the fight isn't close and he still gets the nod that I have an issue. I never labelled the fight on Saturday as corrupt. I just know in order to beat Wilder you're going to have to dominate from the first bell to the last. Due to the two knockdowns Fury didn't do that. It is what it is.

normanoffside

Draw

WBC have ordered an immediate rematch.

https://twitter.com/MichaelBensonn/status/1071132125116686336

nacho libre

Wilder Points

walshb wrote: »

Jaysus, you take your time getting back...

I remember thinking and making the point that Ortiz’s punching and follow ups weren’t great, yet Wilder seemed almost done for. That fight was more a sign of vulnerability as opposed to durability...

And, as you say, AJ a better puncher. For me, in both terms of power and execution and finishing...

Wilder’s only chance v AJ is that KO...and that’s the danger. It is a real danger. It either happens or it doesn’t.

Did you miss me? Thanks:pac:
Ortiz,if he had been a few years younger would have finished Wilder, even so
I did not expect Wilder to stay upright from the barrage of punches he took
As mentioned previously, i think it will be a case of who lands first in the fight between Wilder and Joshua, i think Joshua has the better overall punching technique, so i would favour him to do so.

Too Tough To Die

Fury Points

normanoffside wrote: »

WBC have ordered an immediate rematch.

https://twitter.com/MichaelBensonn/status/1071132125116686336

That reads more like they're approving it rather than ordering it.

Personally i'd rather see Wilder v Joshua for the right to fight the man in the division in late 2019. Fury vs the likes of Ortiz, Povetkin or Whyte if Hearn would allow it in the meantime wouldn't be bad fights, but i'm not sure if they'd be enough to sustain his interest.

StringerBell

Wilder Points

For the right to fight the man with no belt in the division?

walshb

Wilder Points

StringerBell wrote: »

For the right to fight the man with no belt in the division?

Usual OTT Fury lovin’ nonsense...

Cyrus

That or he's the lineal heavyweight champion

StringerBell

Wilder Points

Cyrus wrote: »

That or he's the lineal heavyweight champion

He certainly claims he is alright.

dougm1970

lineal 'title' is a very flawed thing in my mind....say if fury in an alternate reality came back after 2 years out from winning the lineal title...fought really out of shape and dropped a decision to a journeyman with a record of say 20-13 ....and that journeyman in turn drops a decision to a random john smith with a record of 11-33 .....is john smith now the man to beat for the lineal title ?

eagle eye

No, the lineal title can only belong to somebody who had the belts and never lost them in the ring.

Cyrus

StringerBell wrote: »

He certainly claims he is alright.

You dispute it ?

Donald Trump

Fury Points

dougm1970 wrote: »

lineal 'title' is a very flawed thing in my mind....say if fury in an alternate reality came back after 2 years out from winning the lineal title...fought really out of shape and dropped a decision to a journeyman with a record of say 20-13 ....and that journeyman in turn drops a decision to a random john smith with a record of 11-33 .....is john smith now the man to beat for the lineal title ?

Sure the boxer holding the belts could also be dropped by a journeyman


Just ask Buster Douglas



(maybe not quite a journeyman but you get what I mean)

StringerBell

Wilder Points

Cyrus wrote: »

You dispute it ?

Obviously

squinn2912

Draw

Donald Trump wrote: »

Sure the boxer holding the belts could also be dropped by a journeyman


Just ask Buster Douglas



(maybe not quite a journeyman but you get what I mean)

Good point. Hassim Rachman comes to mind in this as well.

normanoffside

Draw

It's probably just Frank Warren trolling but he says he is looking at April 13th as a date for the rematch.

yourdeadwright

Draw

Lineal Champ sounds great but it doesnt work in real life ,
Lewis retired Lineal Champ so how do become Lineal champ if he retired with the title ?
Also hes not the first to do that

walshb

Wilder Points

And let’s not forget the cheating here....

His win over Wlad has an asterisk beside it..

He failed drugs tests in 2015, or was found to have had illegal drugs in his system in 2015.

His lineal claim that he’s been barking on about the past three years is nonsense..

Cyrus

walshb wrote: »

And let’s not forget the cheating here....

His win over Wlad has an asterisk beside it..

He failed drugs tests in 2015, or was found to have had illegal drugs in his system in 2015.

His lineal claim that he’s been barking on about the past three years is nonsense..

who put the asterisk there?

you??:P

walshb

Wilder Points

Cyrus wrote: »

who put the asterisk there?

you??:P

Yes, and anyone who has any common sense....

Cyrus

walshb wrote: »

Yes, and anyone who has any common sense....

:pac:

walshb

Wilder Points

Cyrus wrote: »

:pac:

I knew you'd see sense!

Too Tough To Die

Fury Points

walshb wrote: »

And let’s not forget the cheating here....

His win over Wlad has an asterisk beside it..

He failed drugs tests in 2015, or was found to have had illegal drugs in his system in 2015.

His lineal claim that he’s been barking on about the past three years is nonsense..

No asterisk required.

The elevated levels were found before the Wlad fight. He passed all tests for the Wlad fight. Question is, why did they allow him to fight if he tested for elevated levels before his world title shot? Something strange about that.

Cyrus

i dont recall Wlad making a deal over it either

yourdeadwright

Draw

Wasn't the failure for the Wlad fight just for benzoylecgonine ?

I can't remember at this stage ,

Too Tough To Die

Fury Points

yourdeadwright wrote: »

Wasn't the failure for the Wlad fight just for benzoylecgonine ?

I can't remember at this stage ,

There was no failure for the Wlad fight that i'm aware of.