Watch the fight with the sound off (Showtime commentating disgusting). Wilder won

Showtime commentators clearly were biased towards Fury. I challenge everyone to rewatch the fight with no sound and you'd paint a different picture for yourself. The showtime commentators were acting like Fury was blowing Wilder out of the water and dominating him each round. Yet the punch stats don't show that. Here are the facts: Wilder was the more active fighter. He threw more punches. Listening to Showtime, you wouldn't have known that. Fury was on his bicycle all night and Showtime announcers acted like he was out-jabbing Wilder with a 20-1 ratio while outboxing him: yet, Wilder almost landed as many jabs, and did he not throw more too? Fury slapped and pawed with many of his punches, yet Wilder landed the more effective and damaging blows. Fury's nose looked broken, yet Wilder left the ring unscathed. All of the rounds that Fury "dominated," Wilder landed at least 3-4 power punches, which could have very well negated Fury's movement and more overall punches landed, in the judges eyes. Fury does NOT get the close rounds by default simply because he showboated and acted like he was Ali. Fury's "work" decieved everybody because he was acting like he was super-confident and showboating, yet if you turn the sound off I guarantee you that you will see the rounds being closer than what Fury's taunting and Showtimes biased commentary made you believe. Besides, you have to BEAT the champ and take his belt. Did Fury do enough to warrant Wilder taking the L and losing his belt? In due time, the answer that most people will realize is NO. Good read, thank you.

Thank you Paulie Malignaggi . Someone has the guts to tell the truth ! pic.twitter.com/WtDOBq4pBd— Eddie Brown (@EBBronx) December 2, 2018 Wow, that's damning stuff from Paulie.

If you thought fury schooled the old Ukrainian bum klitschko then your retarted. It was one of the worst bouts in recent history Ok casual, whatever you say.

Showtime commentators clearly were biased towards Fury. I challenge everyone to rewatch the fight with no sound and you'd paint a different picture for yourself. The showtime commentators were acting like Fury was blowing Wilder out of the water and dominating him each round. Yet the punch stats don't show that. Here are the facts: Wilder was the more active fighter. He threw more punches. Listening to Showtime, you wouldn't have known that. Fury was on his bicycle all night and Showtime announcers acted like he was out-jabbing Wilder with a 20-1 ratio while outboxing him: yet, Wilder almost landed as many jabs, and did he not throw more too? Fury slapped and pawed with many of his punches, yet Wilder landed the more effective and damaging blows. Fury's nose looked broken, yet Wilder left the ring unscathed. All of the rounds that Fury "dominated," Wilder landed at least 3-4 power punches, which could have very well negated Fury's movement and more overall punches landed, in the judges eyes. Fury does NOT get the close rounds by default simply because he showboated and acted like he was Ali. Fury's "work" decieved everybody because he was acting like he was super-confident and showboating, yet if you turn the sound off I guarantee you that you will see the rounds being closer than what Fury's taunting and Showtimes biased commentary made you believe. Besides, you have to BEAT the champ and take his belt. Did Fury do enough to warrant Wilder taking the L and losing his belt? In due time, the answer that most people will realize is NO. All you have to do to take a champions belt is beat him. Whether that be by 1 point or by 100 points.

Under the 10 point must system he wouldn't have the points needed to win over Fury.:bottle:Well obviously, he did because ultimately he won the fight. The judges did not give Fury enough credit for his low work rate and low punch volume. In addition, to those two heavy knockdowns in rounds 9 and 12; The judges scored most of the rounds for Wilder due to his higher workrate and because he was the busier fighter of the two.

I saw it on YouTube with some dude speaking Russian playing rap in the background. Still looked like Fury was giving a clinic to my man until Wilder caught him

Lol commentators are never biased towards the away fighter they were just calling it how they saw it

Showtime commentators clearly were biased towards Fury. I challenge everyone to rewatch the fight with no sound and you'd paint a different picture for yourself. The showtime commentators were acting like Fury was blowing Wilder out of the water and dominating him each round. Yet the punch stats don't show that. Here are the facts: Wilder was the more active fighter. He threw more punches. Listening to Showtime, you wouldn't have known that. Fury was on his bicycle all night and Showtime announcers acted like he was out-jabbing Wilder with a 20-1 ratio while outboxing him: yet, Wilder almost landed as many jabs, and did he not throw more too? Fury slapped and pawed with many of his punches, yet Wilder landed the more effective and damaging blows. Fury's nose looked broken, yet Wilder left the ring unscathed. All of the rounds that Fury "dominated," Wilder landed at least 3-4 power punches, which could have very well negated Fury's movement and more overall punches landed, in the judges eyes. Fury does NOT get the close rounds by default simply because he showboated and acted like he was Ali. Fury's "work" decieved everybody because he was acting like he was super-confident and showboating, yet if you turn the sound off I guarantee you that you will see the rounds being closer than what Fury's taunting and Showtimes biased commentary made you believe. Besides, you have to BEAT the champ and take his belt. Did Fury do enough to warrant Wilder taking the L and losing his belt? In due time, the answer that most people will realize is NO. https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fs-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com%2Foriginals%2F57%2F9a%2Fea%2F579aeaa411b73be4120fc2cacda30937.jpg&f=1

I think a draw was fine and I think Wilder did land the harder stuff. But, let's not act like we didn't see Wilder with a puffy left eye. Fury did land some jabs and it showed. And BTW folks, 4 rounds with 2 KDs are enough for a draw for Wilder... Actually no. Idk where u did your math but he would have needed to win 5 rounds for a tie. 2 with the knockdowns and 3 regular 10-9 rounds for a score of 113-113. If he won only 4 total 2 10-8 rounds and 2 10-9 fury woulda won 114-112

Paulie is also going to favor the boxer since he couldn't knock my sister out. As stated in another thread it was a 13 punch difference. Can you make a case that Fury should have won, absolutely.It was an entertaining fight and I am so happy that I purchased it. It was filled with lots of drama; Especially in that twelfth round round. Right when it seemed that Wilder was down and out, he miraculously scored a vicious knockdown, that would have knocked out anyone. However, likewise Fury miraculously got up and beat the count as well. What a fight? In addition, I thought the draw was a fair verdict. Fury won more rounds but under the ten point must system Wilder had done enough to retain his title.

You go on a long rant about Bias and then cap it off saying there should be a bias towards the Champ? "You gotta BEAT the champ" is just sum dumb quote someone said once. Id like you to try an explain what that statement even means as it pertains to scoring a fight? Maybe you think all close rounds should go to the Champ? Maybe the challenger has to win by two points? You don't think two men fighting in the ring should be given an equal chance? It should be an uphill battle for the challenger? If you think a round is even then score it even. I know you can something like its a way of showing respect for the champ and the champ gets the benefit of the doubt. But that's just ridiculous. If a judge thinks the champ lost by a c*nt hair then it's a loss. I mean if you seriously think their should be an implied bias, then where does it end? How much is too much? U have a right to think Wilder won, I have no problem with that if its what u believe. No, but you clearly gave all the close rounds to the challenger. May I ask why? Because there were many close rounds..... and all Wilder needed was 3 of them to get the draw. Wanna explain smart guy? Well I never said who I thought I won. I just had issue with the "Gotta Beat The Champ" comment. I have no problem with you saying Wilder won, and I totally understand the "Turn the Commentary off" comment. I have an identical twin brother its very rare but we've seen sum fights differently. Hes told me "Turn the commentary off and you will see a different fight". Judging is what it is, humans can barely agree on *****. Just try and order a pizza at night with ur friends. I took issue because I hate these "unwritten" supposed parameters like "Scoring an EVEN roud is frowned upon", weve heard that plenty of times from commentators. Someone can win the first round which is usually the slowest by throwing one more jab than the other guy, I mean often people barely touch each other in the first round. But then someone can batter the hell out of someone in another round and its still worth only one point because the unwritten rule is that scoring a 10-8 round without a knockdown is taboo. Basically this means poibts arent anywhere near relative.U could win six rounds by a jab and lose the next six handedly a still get a draw. In a whole without the current paper scoring method which is flawed I have no problem with Wilder getting a draw considering how he put Fury down. Fury got up like a Stud but just because that surprised everyone that shouldn't get more credit than Wilder putting him down which wasemt surprising. btw after the fight I texted my brother that it would be two scores each way and one even. Look Im no assh*le, Ive been on here a long time, I don't have a thousand posts but I don't know if theres anyone on here that has anywhere close to my rep points to post ratio and this is the internet. So I know this is long winded, but to answer your question, I do think ud have to slide a majority of the close rounds to Wilder for him to get a draw on paper. But the fight without the implied scoring method I have no problem with a draw. Christ for a moment there I thought Fury was dead, that's worth a lot.

What does Wlad have to do with this? It's Wlad's fight for not wanting to fight against Fury.... but obviously that wasn't the case with Wilder. He came to fight and knocked out Fury in the 12th, the fact that the referee even allowed Fury to get up should be an investigation in its own right. Very dangerous and reckless. Especially considering he walked out of the ring without a belt anyway. It's just a sport. He didn't knock him out, he knocked him down, the ref did his job, fury got up, seemed to have his wits about him, where is the issue, you just seem cut up about the decision, most of wilders punches missed, I streamed the fight with polish commentators, couldn't understand a word, even with the 2 KDs, the most I could see for wilder was a draw, take off your wilder goggles

You are exaggerating - let's just stick to this knock down. Fury got up to our suprise, then wilder was the one who looked in trouble till the end of the round. Therefore, the referee was right in doing the count and therefore it was great refereeing. Case closed on this instance.

Lol fury won. Even floyd had Fury sweeping the first 5 rounds

First off, you relying on wilder connecting is gambling at best. Fury will be better prepared. If you don't realise Front at has to have a better gameplay, pick his shots and basically box better - I can't help you. As for the referee many will agree he did an awesome job. You should be commending him for at least a very great referee decision on furys second knockdown. No I will not commend a referee for putting a fighters life in danger. You do realize what separates a boxing match from a gladiator match to the death is a referee to protect the health of the fighters, right? His job is not to satisfy you key-board warriors sitting on your couches. What he did was irresponsible and dangerous.

I wholeheartedly agree. Paulie definitely had a horse in the race because he does commentating for British boxing broadcasts. Paulie is also going to favor the boxer since he couldn't knock my sister out. As stated in another thread it was a 13 punch difference. Can you make a case that Fury should have won, absolutely.

First off, you relying on wilder connecting is gambling at best. Fury will be better prepared. If you don't realise Deontay has to have a better gameplan, pick his shots and basically box better - I can't help you. As for the referee many will agree he did an awesome job. You should be commending him for at least a very great referee decision on furys second knockdown.

First off, you relying on wilder connecting is gambling at best. Fury will be better prepared. If you don't realise Front at has to have a better gameplay, pick his shots and basically box better - I can't help you. As for the referee many will agree he did an awesome job. You should be commending him for at least a very great referee decision on furys second knockdown.

someone said something similar in the pub, "2 knockdowns, and 2 rounds, that's all he needs for a draw", something like that, took me a while to figure it out haha, i was like damn i wish i had one of those oldskool calculator-watches right now Easy mistake to make. Two 10-8 rounds is a 4 pt edge, 2 more 10-9 rounds gives you 6 and 120-6 is 114, which is a common score for ties. But, it's wrong since you get 8 points from the other 8 rounds. I got confused because I missed a chunk of the fight, saw the first 3 or 4 riding home from a open mic and picked up the last 4 at home.

Besides, you have to BEAT the champ and take his belt. Did Fury do enough to warrant Wilder taking the L and losing his belt? In due time, the answer that most people will realize is NO. You go on a long rant about Bias and then cap it off saying there should be a bias towards the Champ? "You gotta BEAT the champ" is just sum dumb quote someone said once. Id like you to try an explain what that statement even means as it pertains to scoring a fight? Maybe you think all close rounds should go to the Champ? Maybe the challenger has to win by two points? You don't think two men fighting in the ring should be given an equal chance? It should be an uphill battle for the challenger? If you think a round is even then score it even. I know you can something like its a way of showing respect for the champ and the champ gets the benefit of the doubt. But that's just ridiculous. If a judge thinks the champ lost by a c*nt hair then it's a loss. I mean if you seriously think their should be an implied bias, then where does it end? How much is too much? U have a right to think Wilder won, I have no problem with that if its what u believe. No, but you clearly gave all the close rounds to the challenger. May I ask why? Because there were many close rounds..... and all Wilder needed was 3 of them to get the draw. Wanna explain smart guy?