FURY VS WILDER POLL

[Mexi-Box]

Okay, this is getting ridiculous. The poll is 100% accurate. Fury won that fight easily.

I rewatched it. Only rounds I could give Wilder are the two knockdowns and round 2, which was closer. If you want to stretch, you can *maybe* give him round 4, which was less close than round 2. There is no argument for any of the other rounds. I've watched this two times. Fury's defense was ridiculous throughout the fight. Wilder landed nothing outside of the knockdowns.

[SFW]

We have some serious mental patients in here. There is no case where Fury legitimately lost that fight, none. A draw isn't accurate either. These flat out wrong scores are laughable. You have to lie to yourself, practically every round, to spin it Wilders way just to fraudulently get to a draw. 115-111 for Wilder is criminally bad. 114-112 Fury is as close as it possibly could have been. And I wanted, expected Wilder to win. Any honest person saw that did not happen. Nor was it even. The count in the 12th held more true discrepancy than the deserved winner.

We always come back to the favored cop out, the dreaded " oh all these rounds were close could go either way" bullshit. The last gasp of the people who have no explanation and can't defend their position to even a minimal satisfaction. Let me pose a question. Using all the criteria for how to properly score a round, what are the odds that any two fighters would produce EXACTLY the same amount of effectiveness? Practically zero. There is always, always an edge somewhere no matter how slight. Someone was more effective you probably just didn't see it, know it, or in this case admit it.

I was impressed that a 209lb man with crude skills was walking down the 260lb slippery giant, but that does not equate to winning the rounds. From all I've seen, the way rounds 2-5 were scored had the lasting impact on the decision. If it's low contact rounds, you look to who's landing cleanly and effectively if you can't differentiate there you look at the other scoring elements like ring generalship, defense, EFFECTIVE aggression. Nobody on Earth can tell me Wilders ineffective aggression earned more points than Fury's consistently solid defense. That didn't happen. Fury won that fight, by any honest standard. The rematch is likely a different story, but the Brit deserved better in this case. He won. Brook and Calzaghe got fair shakes here, Fury didn't.

[ironbeard]

We have some serious mental patients in here. There is no case where Fury legitimately lost that fight, none. A draw isn't accurate either. These flat out wrong scores are laughable. You have to lie to yourself, practically every round, to spin it Wilders way just to fraudulently get to a draw. 115-111 for Wilder is criminally bad. 114-112 Fury is as close as it possibly could have been. And I wanted, expected Wilder to win. Any honest person saw that did not happen. Nor was it even. The count in the 12th held more true discrepancy than the deserved winner.

We always come back to the favored cop out, the dreaded " oh all these rounds were close could go either way" bullshit. The last gasp of the people who have no explanation and can't defend their position to even a minimal satisfaction. Let me pose a question. Using all the criteria for how to properly score a round, what are the odds that any two fighters would produce EXACTLY the same amount of effectiveness? Practically zero. There is always, always an edge somewhere no matter how slight. Someone was more effective you probably just didn't see it, know it, or in this case admit it.

I was impressed that a 209lb man with crude skills was walking down the 260lb slippery giant, but that does not equate to winning the rounds. From all I've seen, the way rounds 2-5 were scored had the lasting impact on the decision. If it's low contact rounds, you look to who's landing cleanly and effectively if you can't differentiate there you look at the other scoring elements like ring generalship, defense, EFFECTIVE aggression. Nobody on Earth can tell me Wilders ineffective aggression earned more points than Fury's consistently solid defense. That didn't happen. Fury won that fight, by any honest standard. The rematch is likely a different story, but the Brit deserved better in this case. He won. Brook and Calzaghe got fair shakes here, Fury didn't.

There is no “last gasp” for you butthurt, whinefest, wall of words puking, eternal tantruminas.

There were a majority of very close to close rounds. The judges’ cards were definitely headed Fury’s way except for two tiny little problems; he was knocked on his prodigious buttocks in two rounds, which made it a draw.

[SFW]

The poll, the public, and even the partially educated already know, you are wrong. Nothing terrible, you just got it wrong. It's ok, happens to everyone.

[ironbeard]

The poll, the public, and even the partially educated already know, you are wrong. Nothing terrible, you just got it wrong. It's ok, happens to everyone.

So did all of you.

[SFW]

The poll, the public, and even the partially educated already know, you are wrong. Nothing terrible, you just got it wrong. It's ok, happens to everyone.

So did all of you.

That's either the saddest or stupidest fornicating response imaginable, I see where the mentally deficient scoring comes from. Have a good day anyway, do keep the cork on all the silverware though Ruprecht we can't afford another accident.

[Impractical Poster]

I rewatched the fight. This time with the sound off, shades drawn, pjs on, and sippy cup in hand. Fell the eff asleep.

I enjoyed the fight to be honest.

I did too. I just find it amusing when people consistently say the rewatched with the volume off.

[Impractical Poster]

The poll, the public, and even the partially educated already know, you are wrong. Nothing terrible, you just got it wrong. It's ok, happens to everyone.

Boxing is subjective. This isn't the first time he's had a different view than the majority of observers on a big fight. I don't see how he gets to that conclusion other than his set of criteria is different than the norm. Sometimes I think it's just a matter of him enjoying swimming against the current.

[ironbeard]

The poll, the public, and even the partially educated already know, you are wrong. Nothing terrible, you just got it wrong. It's ok, happens to everyone.

So did all of you.

That's either the saddest or stupidest effing response imaginable, I see where the mentally deficient scoring comes from. Have a good day anyway, do keep the cork on all the silverware though Ruprecht we can't afford another accident.

Keep a cork on your anger issues, wannabe Hulk.

[ironbeard]

I rewatched the fight. This time with the sound off, shades drawn, pjs on, and sippy cup in hand. Fell the eff asleep.

I enjoyed the fight to be honest.

I did too. I just find it amusing when people consistently say the rewatched with the volume off.

I watch every big fight that I am scoring with the volume off, first time, every time.

[Impractical Poster]

I enjoyed the fight to be honest.

I did too. I just find it amusing when people consistently say the rewatched with the volume off.

I watch every big fight that I am scoring with the volume off, first time, every time.

I can't hear for shit anyway, so it doesn't really matter in my case anymore.

[Onetimeonly]

I'd lose attention without crowd noise. I don't enjoy scoring fights anymore in boxing. They're rarely interesting enough to warrant the effort.

[ironbeard]

I did too. I just find it amusing when people consistently say the rewatched with the volume off.

I watch every big fight that I am scoring with the volume off, first time, every time.

I can't hear for poo anyway, so it doesn't really matter in my case anymore.

[Impractical Poster]

I'd lose attention without crowd noise. I don't enjoy scoring fights anymore in boxing. They're rarely interesting enough to warrant the effort.

I'm the same for the most part. However, there are certain fights where one fighter clearly loses so many rounds that it's hard not to keep track.

[Onetimeonly]

I'd lose attention without crowd noise. I don't enjoy scoring fights anymore in boxing. They're rarely interesting enough to warrant the effort.

I'm the same for the most part. However, there are certain fights where one fighter clearly loses so many rounds that it's hard not to keep track.

Agreed, this wasn't one of them.

[ironbeard]

The poll, the public, and even the partially educated already know, you are wrong. Nothing terrible, you just got it wrong. It's ok, happens to everyone.

Boxing is subjective. This isn't the first time he's had a different view than the majority of observers on a big fight. I don't see how he gets to that conclusion other than his set of criteria is different than the norm. Sometimes I think it's just a matter of him enjoying swimming against the current.

I swim against the current when the current is going the wrong way.

[squiggy]

i.e. you're just being contrarian.

[Mexi-Box]

We have some serious mental patients in here. There is no case where Fury legitimately lost that fight, none. A draw isn't accurate either. These flat out wrong scores are laughable. You have to lie to yourself, practically every round, to spin it Wilders way just to fraudulently get to a draw. 115-111 for Wilder is criminally bad. 114-112 Fury is as close as it possibly could have been. And I wanted, expected Wilder to win. Any honest person saw that did not happen. Nor was it even. The count in the 12th held more true discrepancy than the deserved winner.

We always come back to the favored cop out, the dreaded " oh all these rounds were close could go either way" bullshit. The last gasp of the people who have no explanation and can't defend their position to even a minimal satisfaction. Let me pose a question. Using all the criteria for how to properly score a round, what are the odds that any two fighters would produce EXACTLY the same amount of effectiveness? Practically zero. There is always, always an edge somewhere no matter how slight. Someone was more effective you probably just didn't see it, know it, or in this case admit it.

I was impressed that a 209lb man with crude skills was walking down the 260lb slippery giant, but that does not equate to winning the rounds. From all I've seen, the way rounds 2-5 were scored had the lasting impact on the decision. If it's low contact rounds, you look to who's landing cleanly and effectively if you can't differentiate there you look at the other scoring elements like ring generalship, defense, EFFECTIVE aggression. Nobody on Earth can tell me Wilders ineffective aggression earned more points than Fury's consistently solid defense. That didn't happen. Fury won that fight, by any honest standard. The rematch is likely a different story, but the Brit deserved better in this case. He won. Brook and Calzaghe got fair shakes here, Fury didn't.

There is no “last gasp” for you butthurt, whinefest, wall of words puking, eternal tantruminas.

There were a majority of very close to close rounds. The judges’ cards were definitely headed Fury’s way except for two tiny little problems; he was knocked on his prodigious buttocks in two rounds, which made it a draw.

No there weren't. The majority of rounds were clearly Fury rounds. Two of the judges were blind.

[godosin]

120 votes.

90 for Fury

19 draw

11 Wilder

Enough said.

I guess eugenics is correct as well since the majority of people in the 1920's thought it was true too.

[ironbeard]

i.e. you're just being contrarian.

Not true, and my record proves it. I am on the majority side the majority of the time. I scored it realtime on the rbr. It is pretty difficult to hide from that, even if I chose to..

[ironbeard]

We have some serious mental patients in here. There is no case where Fury legitimately lost that fight, none. A draw isn't accurate either. These flat out wrong scores are laughable. You have to lie to yourself, practically every round, to spin it Wilders way just to fraudulently get to a draw. 115-111 for Wilder is criminally bad. 114-112 Fury is as close as it possibly could have been. And I wanted, expected Wilder to win. Any honest person saw that did not happen. Nor was it even. The count in the 12th held more true discrepancy than the deserved winner.

We always come back to the favored cop out, the dreaded " oh all these rounds were close could go either way" bullshit. The last gasp of the people who have no explanation and can't defend their position to even a minimal satisfaction. Let me pose a question. Using all the criteria for how to properly score a round, what are the odds that any two fighters would produce EXACTLY the same amount of effectiveness? Practically zero. There is always, always an edge somewhere no matter how slight. Someone was more effective you probably just didn't see it, know it, or in this case admit it.

I was impressed that a 209lb man with crude skills was walking down the 260lb slippery giant, but that does not equate to winning the rounds. From all I've seen, the way rounds 2-5 were scored had the lasting impact on the decision. If it's low contact rounds, you look to who's landing cleanly and effectively if you can't differentiate there you look at the other scoring elements like ring generalship, defense, EFFECTIVE aggression. Nobody on Earth can tell me Wilders ineffective aggression earned more points than Fury's consistently solid defense. That didn't happen. Fury won that fight, by any honest standard. The rematch is likely a different story, but the Brit deserved better in this case. He won. Brook and Calzaghe got fair shakes here, Fury didn't.

There is no “last gasp” for you butthurt, whinefest, wall of words puking, eternal tantruminas.

There were a majority of very close to close rounds. The judges’ cards were definitely headed Fury’s way except for two tiny little problems; he was knocked on his prodigious buttocks in two rounds, which made it a draw.

No there weren't. The majority of rounds were clearly Fury rounds. Two of the judges were blind.

Are you a little girl masquerading as a Mexican in this he said she said?

[ewenhay]

People still feeding the troll I see.

Best ignored.

[godosin]

Okay, this is getting ridiculous. The poll is 100% accurate. Fury won that fight easily.

I rewatched it. Only rounds I could give Wilder are the two knockdowns and round 2, which was closer. If you want to stretch, you can *maybe* give him round 4, which was less close than round 2. There is no argument for any of the other rounds. I've watched this two times. Fury's defense was ridiculous throughout the fight. Wilder landed nothing outside of the knockdowns.

I watched it nth number times so I'm right, argument. I've seen it a few times as well buddy, but the first six rounds could go to either one. On second viewing I would say I might have given the third and sixth to Wilder, it just depends on how you judge the first six rounds. I thought Fury won, but just because many people agree with me doesn't mean I'm right.

[godosin]

We have some serious mental patients in here. There is no case where Fury legitimately lost that fight, none. A draw isn't accurate either. These flat out wrong scores are laughable. You have to lie to yourself, practically every round, to spin it Wilders way just to fraudulently get to a draw. 115-111 for Wilder is criminally bad. 114-112 Fury is as close as it possibly could have been. And I wanted, expected Wilder to win. Any honest person saw that did not happen. Nor was it even. The count in the 12th held more true discrepancy than the deserved winner.

We always come back to the favored cop out, the dreaded " oh all these rounds were close could go either way" bullshit. The last gasp of the people who have no explanation and can't defend their position to even a minimal satisfaction. Let me pose a question. Using all the criteria for how to properly score a round, what are the odds that any two fighters would produce EXACTLY the same amount of effectiveness? Practically zero. There is always, always an edge somewhere no matter how slight. Someone was more effective you probably just didn't see it, know it, or in this case admit it.

I was impressed that a 209lb man with crude skills was walking down the 260lb slippery giant, but that does not equate to winning the rounds. From all I've seen, the way rounds 2-5 were scored had the lasting impact on the decision. If it's low contact rounds, you look to who's landing cleanly and effectively if you can't differentiate there you look at the other scoring elements like ring generalship, defense, EFFECTIVE aggression. Nobody on Earth can tell me Wilders ineffective aggression earned more points than Fury's consistently solid defense. That didn't happen. Fury won that fight, by any honest standard. The rematch is likely a different story, but the Brit deserved better in this case. He won. Brook and Calzaghe got fair shakes here, Fury didn't.

Are you okay? It seems like you lost your sanity; no offense intended.

[godosin]

We have some serious mental patients in here. There is no case where Fury legitimately lost that fight, none. A draw isn't accurate either. These flat out wrong scores are laughable. You have to lie to yourself, practically every round, to spin it Wilders way just to fraudulently get to a draw. 115-111 for Wilder is criminally bad. 114-112 Fury is as close as it possibly could have been. And I wanted, expected Wilder to win. Any honest person saw that did not happen. Nor was it even. The count in the 12th held more true discrepancy than the deserved winner.

We always come back to the favored cop out, the dreaded " oh all these rounds were close could go either way" bullshit. The last gasp of the people who have no explanation and can't defend their position to even a minimal satisfaction. Let me pose a question. Using all the criteria for how to properly score a round, what are the odds that any two fighters would produce EXACTLY the same amount of effectiveness? Practically zero. There is always, always an edge somewhere no matter how slight. Someone was more effective you probably just didn't see it, know it, or in this case admit it.

I was impressed that a 209lb man with crude skills was walking down the 260lb slippery giant, but that does not equate to winning the rounds. From all I've seen, the way rounds 2-5 were scored had the lasting impact on the decision. If it's low contact rounds, you look to who's landing cleanly and effectively if you can't differentiate there you look at the other scoring elements like ring generalship, defense, EFFECTIVE aggression. Nobody on Earth can tell me Wilders ineffective aggression earned more points than Fury's consistently solid defense. That didn't happen. Fury won that fight, by any honest standard. The rematch is likely a different story, but the Brit deserved better in this case. He won. Brook and Calzaghe got fair shakes here, Fury didn't.

Are you okay? It seems like you lost your sanity; no offense intended.