BoxRec

Fury didn't do enough to prove that card dirty. It may well have been, but 6 or 7 jabs and a right hand a round is begging for controversy if you're capable of putting on a masterclass many of you pretend you saw.

Onetimeonly wrote: ↑20 Jun 2019, 13:55 Fury didn't do enough to prove that card dirty. It may well have been, but 6 or 7 jabs and a right hand a round is begging for controversy if you're capable of putting on a masterclass many of you pretend you saw.

Waving your arms in the air and putting them behind your back doesn't score points. The better his opponent, the less punches thrown by Fury.

oogiebe wrote: ↑20 Jun 2019, 13:56 Waving your arms in the air and putting them behind your back doesn't score points. The better his opponent, the less punches thrown by Fury.

Yes sir. Fury only throws a handful of punches per round unless he is fighting one of his over matched opponents.

even then he often doesnt throw much at all, his rematch vs chis is the worst fight i ever saw

jamamb wrote: ↑20 Jun 2019, 15:04 even then he often doesnt throw much at all, his rematch vs chis is the worst fight i ever saw

Really? I don't much remember that fight. And I'm not about to watch it again.

Onetimeonly wrote: ↑20 Jun 2019, 13:55 Fury didn't do enough to prove that card dirty. It may well have been, but 6 or 7 jabs and a right hand a round is begging for controversy if you're capable of putting on a masterclass many of you pretend you saw.

So it's quite easy for me to show you that it WAS a dirty card. There are a combination factors which should be quite easy to follow, and when put together should leave no doubt.

I’m using data from here: https://eyeonthering.com/boxing/deontay ... tyson-fury

We can look at it at three levels:
1. The overall margin of the victory scored by Rochin.
2. Rochin gave the first 4 rounds to Wilder
3. Rochin gave round 3 to Wilder

1. Of the different publications listed that covered the fight, there was a mix of US, British and international publications. Some will have been biased toward Fury, some will have been biased toward Wilder. Not one of them scored the fight more than 114-112 in favor of Wilder. Rochin scored it 115-111 Wilder.

2. Of 85 fans cards that were submitted to the above website, only one gave Wilder all four of the opening rounds. That card gave Wilder a 116-110 win. It could be suggested that was submitted by a very pro “wilder fan.” Rochin gave Wilder the first 4 rounds.

3A. When that sample of 85 fan cards was averaged round on round, Round 3 had a score of 0.97 in favour of Fury, and 0.02 in favour of Wilder. Rochin gave round 3 to Wilder.

Yes, you could argue that fan cards are self-selecting, and so we cannot say how many were or were not Fury fans. So instead we can turn to the punch stats for round 3:

3B. In the third round Wilder landed 4/31 punches. Fury landed 11/30. This was a busy round for Fury. Punch volume was almost identical, but Fury significantly outlanded Wilder (nearly 3 to 1). Therefore, we can ignore this idea of recording error; additionally, there is no excuse for either missing or interpreting one or two punches as landing in favor of Wilder as a way to give him the round. Again, Rochin gave round 3 to Wilder.

Taking all of the above into consideration, I think you are on the wrong side of things if you continue to say that fight was called fairly.

So, the bottom line is Rochin submitted a dirty card.

No boxing fan should be accepting that. Though I can appreciate your position...All this talk about Fury’s fans annoying you by talking about masterclasses, or others disliking Fury’s mugging and waving his arms around is only muddying the water. It was a dirty card. It was a robbery.

jamamb wrote: ↑20 Jun 2019, 12:20 so u say this ' almost nothing happened in a minimum of 8 rounds'

but then did wilder clearly win at least 5? enough rounds to mean it wudve been beyond fury winning exceptna gift to fury?

simple question, yes or no, doesnt need triggered paragraphs

Try rewriting that intelligibly.

I scored more of the close rounds for Wilder. On the night, I would have considered a Fury close decision a gift.

It is apparent that you have a difficult time both communicating and processing English. If I could type it slower for you I would.

so , wilder won at least 5 rounds clear? yes? no?

Finkel wrote: ↑20 Jun 2019, 23:48 So it's quite easy for me to show you that it WAS a dirty card. There are a combination factors which should be quite easy to follow, and when put together should leave no doubt.

I’m using data from here: https://eyeonthering.com/boxing/deontay ... tyson-fury

We can look at it at three levels:
1. The overall margin of the victory scored by Rochin.
2. Rochin gave the first 4 rounds to Wilder
3. Rochin gave round 3 to Wilder

1. Of the different publications listed that covered the fight, there was a mix of US, British and international publications. Some will have been biased toward Fury, some will have been biased toward Wilder. Not one of them scored the fight more than 114-112 in favor of Wilder. Rochin scored it 115-111 Wilder.

2. Of 85 fans cards that were submitted to the above website, only one gave Wilder all four of the opening rounds. That card gave Wilder a 116-110 win. It could be suggested that was submitted by a very pro “wilder fan.” Rochin gave Wilder the first 4 rounds.

3A. When that sample of 85 fan cards was averaged round on round, Round 3 had a score of 0.97 in favour of Fury, and 0.02 in favour of Wilder. Rochin gave round 3 to Wilder.

Yes, you could argue that fan cards are self-selecting, and so we cannot say how many were or were not Fury fans. So instead we can turn to the punch stats for round 3:

3B. In the third round Wilder landed 4/31 punches. Fury landed 11/30. This was a busy round for Fury. Punch volume was almost identical, but Fury significantly outlanded Wilder (nearly 3 to 1). Therefore, we can ignore this idea of recording error; additionally, there is no excuse for either missing or interpreting one or two punches as landing in favor of Wilder as a way to give him the round. Again, Rochin gave round 3 to Wilder.

Taking all of the above into consideration, I think you are on the wrong side of things if you continue to say that fight was called fairly.

So, the bottom line is Rochin submitted a dirty card.

No boxing fan should be accepting that. Though I can appreciate your position...All this talk about Fury’s fans annoying you by talking about masterclasses, or others disliking Fury’s mugging and waving his arms around is only muddying the water. It was a dirty card. It was a robbery.

shocking you think I'd read and click all that.

Onetimeonly wrote: ↑21 Jun 2019, 00:59 shocking you think I'd read and click all that.

Lucky I put the key points in bold to make it an easy read for you then.

Finkel wrote: ↑21 Jun 2019, 01:18 Lucky I put the key points in bold to make it an easy read for you then.

Well done.

jamamb wrote: ↑21 Jun 2019, 00:34 so , wilder won at least 5 rounds clear? yes? no?

I already answered your question, several times.

Are you a moron? Yes or no.

paste the part where u clearly answered that then bruh .i mean, you claim that there were loads of next to nothing rounds, but then also that wilder was definitely the only guy with a legit case for winning? doesnt really give a good picture of what you think were clear rounds that were beyond doubt for one guy. if there were loads of either way rounds then obviously fury has a case, but if wilder won like half the rounds clear your point makes more sense

its as simple as posting 'yes ' or 'no' but you keep going around

ironbeard wrote: ↑21 Jun 2019, 01:44 I already answered your question, several times.

Are you a moron? Yes or no.

yes, i am a moron and proud of it, there, see how easy it is to answer without dancing around

jamamb wrote: ↑21 Jun 2019, 01:58 yes, i am a moron and proud of it, there, see how easy it is to answer without dancing around

Other than the voluminous evidence in your post history, can you provide evidence that you are a moron? Yes or no.

ironbeard wrote: ↑21 Jun 2019, 10:45 Other than the voluminous evidence in your post history, can you provide evidence that you are a moron? Yes or no.

yep, 2 + 2 = 5

see, easy work, no need to go in wide loops to avoid giving a straight answer

jamamb wrote: ↑21 Jun 2019, 13:55 yep, 2 + 2 = 5

see, easy work, no need to go in wide loops to avoid giving a straight answer

You know that 2 + 2 does not equal five, don’t you, jamamb? Yes or no.

no

didnt know that, must indeed be evidence of moronary

jamamb wrote: ↑22 Jun 2019, 01:12 no

didnt know that, must indeed be evidence of moronary

If you do not know that 2 + 2 does not equal 5, then you could not know that it is evidence that you are a moron, right jamamb?

Your both idiots

Finkel wrote: ↑22 Jun 2019, 11:41 Your both idiots

It's you're sweetheart.

ironbeard wrote: ↑22 Jun 2019, 07:37 If you do not know that 2 + 2 does not equal 5, then you could not know that it is evidence that you are a moron, right jamamb?

well duh ya, thats the workings of a moron , of course they make little sense, ive certanly convinced our boy finkel

Finkel wrote: ↑22 Jun 2019, 11:41 Your both idiots

Do you habitually butt in on conversations with personal insults, Finkelstone?

jamamb wrote: ↑22 Jun 2019, 14:30 well duh ya, thats the workings of a moron , of course they make little sense, ive certanly convinced our boy finkel

Do you have anything more definitive that you can present as evidence?

Onetimeonly wrote: ↑22 Jun 2019, 12:43 It's you're sweetheart.

This is why I like you. You are an asshole.
It's your charm