BoxRec

Was close for me but I wasn't keeping score. Szpilka is fairly awkward but that's all he is, he shouldn't cause a HW champion problems.

I gave spilzka two rounds. There were definitely a couple that could have gone either way that i gave to wilder. It didn't seem like wilder was ever really getting hit cleanly.

Wilder was way ahead.

Gotta be blind or biased not to see it that way.

Had szpilka ahead. I thought Wilder was missing a lot and was sloppy as hell.. IMO szpilka was more effective and had Wilder on wobbly legs and exhausted partly caused by effective aggression

I had Wilder slightly ahead, but the early rounds were mainly won by Szpilka, in my opinion Wilder seemed to be worse compared to his last fight against Duhaupas.

How did the judges have it?

I had Szpilka ahead 6 rounds to 2.

But he would have been robbed if it had gone the distance.

TheBeast wrote:Had szpilka ahead. I thought Wilder was missing a lot and was sloppy as hell.. IMO szpilka was more effective and had Wilder on wobbly legs and exhausted partly caused by effective aggression

Freedom2013 wrote:I had Szpilka ahead 6 rounds to 2.

But he would have been robbed if it had gone the distance.

These. Wilder landed the cleaner shots, but actual damaging shots were few and far between. Szpilka also made him miss a lot.

I had it even, but Wilder was winning 9 even before the definitive blow.

It's amazing how perspectives can change after the fight. I think some people didn't even watch the fight, just see the KO then assume Wilder was winning. Not the case, and the vast majority of round by rounds on the internet done by boxing fans had Szpilka ahead or the fight even. Let me be more specific; there was a live, real time Round by Round done at this site.

You can view the official round by round of the fight here: http://boxrec.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f ... 6&start=25

In that round by round here at BoxRec, there were 6 posters scoring the fight after every round, and all 6 stated their cumulative scores in real time after round 8.

Of the 6;
- 4 had the fight even.
- 2 had Szpilka winning the fight, by scores of 78-74, and 77-75.
- *Not a single person had Wilder winning*

I think that answers he question of who was winning the fight right there: It was a competitive fight with Szpilka slightly ahead at time of stoppage.

It really make you wonder about the tremendous discrepancy between what the fans were seeing here on the internet (Szpilka ahead or even), versus what the judges had it (Wilder dominating), versus what Showtime had it (Wilder dominating). You know the media and judges are full of crap when their scores differ so drastically from the fight that fans saw.

Credit to Wilder, he won the fight on KO, so it is a moot point. But at the time of stoppage Szpilka was winning and it seems there was a systematic bias on part of the judges and Showtime that was favouring Wilder.

Perhaps the Americans just trying to protect their champion?

Had Wilder ahead.

But how close to dry was the washing you hung out before it poured with rain? Redundant question really.

Like a Boss wrote:Wilder ahead.

How close to dry was the washing you hung out before it poured with rain? Redundant question really.

Not redundant at all.

A fight is more than an ending if you weren't aware.

crusader wrote:

Like a Boss wrote:Wilder ahead.

How close to dry was the washing you hung out before it poured with rain? Redundant question really.

Not redundant at all.

A fight is more than an ending if you weren't aware.

You take the fight out of the judges' hands when you win by KO. Their scorecards then become redundant to the outcome. Surely I'm not the first person to break that news to you?

Oh, I totally agree. A KO is the best way to win a fight, because then there is no doubt about who won the fight or who the better fighter was.

So, credit to Wilder on the KO. He won the fight absolutely fair and square. He also showed good sportsmanship after the fight.

My issue is not with Wilder, it is with the judging and Showtime scoring. My point in bringing up the scoring is to show the large disconnect between how the majority of fans saw it on the internet round by rounds (Szpilka winning or the fight close to even, there literally wasnt a single fan in the boxrec rbr that had Wilder winning out of 6 posters), versus how the judges scored it (all 3 for Wilder), or how Showtime had it (Wilder winning comfortably).

It seems there is a complete disagreement between how the fans saw this fight, versus how the judges and Showtime saw it.

It seems like there was truly a systematic bias in place in the judging and Showtime scoring that was favouring Wilder. Whether that is racial, political, or national is debatable, but Wilder was definitely receiving preferential scoring.

Like a Boss wrote:

crusader wrote:

Like a Boss wrote:Wilder ahead.

How close to dry was the washing you hung out before it poured with rain? Redundant question really.

Not redundant at all.

A fight is more than an ending if you weren't aware.

You take the fight out of the judges' hands when you win by KO. Their scorecards then become redundant to the outcome. Surely I'm not the first person to break that news to you?

As I said, fights are composed of more than an ending. We can learn a lot about fighters based on how they perform even in victory, and this information can prove very useful in evaluating how good they are generally and how they'd likely fare against specific opponents. So how people saw the bout prior to the stoppage, in other words, how they saw the vast majority of the fight rather than the split second in which the KO blow landed, isn't irrelevant, useless, or whatever you want to call it. I also find it interesting to see other opinions on fights, as they sometimes open my eyes to things I previously didn't notice and I enjoy the exchange of views.

Besides, if you want to be accurate, our views on the scores wouldn't have any impact on the official outcome even if the bout went to the cards, so be sure to leave 'it's redundant' posts in scoring threads even when the fights in question feature highly controversial decisions.

Andrew Kearney wrote:Oh, I totally agree. A KO is the best way to win a fight, because then there is no doubt about who won the fight or who the better fighter was.

So, credit to Wilder on the KO. He won the fight absolutely fair and square. He also showed good sportsmanship after the fight.

My issue is not with Wilder, it is with the judging and Showtime scoring. My point in bringing up the scoring is to show the large disconnect between how the majority of fans saw it on the internet round by rounds (Szpilka winning or the fight close to even, there literally wasnt a single fan in the boxrec rbr that had Wilder winning out of 6 posters), versus how the judges scored it (all 3 for Wilder), or how Showtime had it (Wilder winning comfortably).

It seems there is a complete disagreement between how the fans saw this fight, versus how the judges and Showtime saw it.

It seems like there was truly a systematic bias in place in the judging and Showtime scoring that was favouring Wilder. Whether that is racial, political, or national is debatable, but Wilder was definitely receiving preferential scoring.

While I agree that the official scoring seemed off, I could see people having Wilder or Szpilka ahead by a round or two. And I do not agree with the limited amount of round by rounds on this site being conclusive evidence of a problem with the official judging.

Andrew Kearney wrote:Oh, I totally agree. A KO is the best way to win a fight, because then there is no doubt about who won the fight or who the better fighter was.

So, credit to Wilder on the KO. He won the fight absolutely fair and square. He also showed good sportsmanship after the fight.

My issue is not with Wilder, it is with the judging and Showtime scoring. My point in bringing up the scoring is to show the large disconnect between how the majority of fans saw it on the internet round by rounds (Szpilka winning or the fight close to even, there literally wasnt a single fan in the boxrec rbr that had Wilder winning out of 6 posters), versus how the judges scored it (all 3 for Wilder), or how Showtime had it (Wilder winning comfortably).

It seems there is a complete disagreement between how the fans saw this fight, versus how the judges and Showtime saw it.

It seems like there was truly a systematic bias in place in the judging and Showtime scoring that was favouring Wilder. Whether that is racial, political, or national is debatable, but Wilder was definitely receiving preferential scoring.

The majority also had Artur ahead or level at two other forums I regularly visit, and I tend to find most of the posters' scoring more credible than that of Showtime commentators and official judges. It's not like having Wilder just ahead is terrible scoring, but IMO someone was probably looking to give him rounds and/or was influenced by biased commentary if they had him up by more than two.

It was a hard fight to score. I felt the majority of rounds could have gone either way. But, the definitive rounds were Wilder's.

I was impressed with Artur in this bout. He was moving very well, looked very fast, and was extremely confident. He really wanted that title. Wilder is obviously still a work in process, but that power is legit.

I'm looking forward to see what happens next in the division. I haven't been excited for the HW division since the Lewis days.

My score was 5 round's to 3 Wilder in front by 2 point's

I had Artur ahead.

U.K. Commentary was Froch who I think had Wilder just ahead whilst Bellew had Artur a couple up.
I thought it was quite distasteful how showtime kept showing his fiancées reaction to the knockout whilst he was still stricken on the canvas.
How did Paulie score it?

It's true that the scorecards are pretty pointless in a fight that ends via knockout but I wanted to know what the judges had for a score too. Sometimes they fill us in on the scores up until the knockout and sometimes they don't. I wish they would just do it or not do it for every fight.

I had Wilder comfortably ahead in the fight. Anyone that didn't must have been Polish or swayed by the crowd noise. Wilder landed the more effective punches throughout the fight and the jab was starting to work like a jackhammer. This kids getting better and i loved the dram with Fury after the fight too. Love it.

I had it 4-4, Wilder was winning 9th. From the TV I thought 4 rounds were very close so it is easy to see it 6-2 each way. If you looked at Szpilka's face after 8 rounds he was quite bashed up. Wilder looked unmarked after the fight. The judges had a better view of what was landing so I think they were probably right and I was off with my 4-4.

Wilder was ahead 5-3 imo. Szpilka was awkward, but no way was he clearly winning like some think. It doesn't really matter anyway, so have fun with it. It matters about as much as Pac being ahead of JMM before that fight ended.

I had Szpilka ahead, I thought he was busier, being more effectively aggressive (though Wilder was landing the cleaner shots) and I thought his defense was much better too as he made Wilder miss and fall off balance continually even making him appear clumsy and goofy at times.

I can't see how anyone did not score the other criteria in the bout (Effective aggression, Defense and Ring Generalship), it appears to me that people were only focused on the clean shots that Wilder landed and that's why many of you had him ahead. (I didn't).