Is Tyson Fury the Malignaggi of HW's?

He's not known for being heavy handed but to say he was never close to hurting Wilder is complete nonsense, he hurt Wilder multiple times in the fight.

Why is that? Well, that's because it's a tradition in boxing. The challenger has to take it convincingly from the champion. Arguably, Fury did not do that. Second point: Fury was risk adverse as you stated and as a result failed to impress the judges. You need to take chances in boxing to obtain the glory. Judges don't want to see pitter patter followed by a fighter retreating and dancing around not punching. Third point: this is boxing and controversial decisions are the norm rather than the exception. Wilder was having an off night, due to overtraining/sickness or whatever and Fury should have pressed for the KO so to not leave it to the judges. No, that is bullshyt and is one of the reasons controversial decisions happen so often. Fury should've done enough to win the fight and that is exactly what he did. Saying he has only himself to blame because he was gonna get robbed anyway is basically saying you're cool with crooked decisions. Just because this happens so often it doesn't mean we as fans have to accept it and deal with it because 'that's the way it is'. No, we should moan and bytch about it as loud and as often as possible. Then and only then somebody might do something about it.

Fury hits hard, no doubt about, I actually thought there was a point somewhere late R1 or R2 when Wilder had a bit of a stunned look on his face by Fury's power. He can crack. If he fought Joshua style, he'd lay everyone out IMO, but would be more likely to get hit also. So as he's clearly the best technical boxer, it makes sense for him to fight the way he does. But if for example they rematch and Wilder wins the first several rounds and has some knock downs, but Fury is still in good condition, he'll go balls to the wall and potentially knock Wilder out. Another thing I took from the fight is that most the punches Fury avoided with head movement, I don't think Joshua would as that is Joshua's biggest weakness, and I think style wise, Joshua is made for Wilder to KO. No disrespect to Joshua, as he's a great champion, but just my view, we'll see.

I've been followed boxing for over 20 years, how come I've heard and read from boxing fans, pundits and commentators - that the challenger has to take the title convincingly? Did I just make that up? Did I hear wrong? Is that not a typical theme in boxing? I think I've heard Max Kellerman say something to that affect. You've heard it yes, it's still dumb and makes no sense and isn't actually a real thing. So many fighters have won titles via close, either way fights, as they should. In the 80's you'd always hear commentators say "you can't win the title by backpeddling.You can't win the title without coming foward" and because that's even dumber they then changes the narrative to "you have to beat the champion convincingly" which is no less dumb really. Ask yourself the question WHY would that make sense? To beat the champion, you have to win the fight. That's it. You need to score one more point than him. If that ridiculous narrative was actually true then you wouldn't be able to win a title by split decision

Why is that? Well, that's because it's a tradition in boxing. The challenger has to take it convincingly from the champion. Arguably, Fury did not do that. Second point: Fury was risk adverse as you stated and as a result failed to impress the judges. You need to take chances in boxing to obtain the glory. Judges don't want to see pitter patter followed by a fighter retreating and dancing around not punching. Third point: this is boxing and controversial decisions are the norm rather than the exception. Wilder was having an off night, due to overtraining/sickness or whatever and Fury should have pressed for the KO so to not leave it to the judges. No it's not a tradition in Boxing. It's a totally made up, illogical point of view that some commentator probably made up in recent history. It's stupid and makes no sense. Fury doesn't need to press for the KO when he has a monster puncher infront of him. Winning is enough and that's what he did.

Wilders face sure looked like he was hurt

I've been followed boxing for over 20 years, how come I've heard and read from boxing fans, pundits and commentators - that the challenger has to take the title convincingly? Did I just make that up? Did I hear wrong? Is that not a typical theme in boxing? I think I've heard Max Kellerman say something to that affect.Yes they say that all the time and they are wrong all the time. There is absolutely no rule anywhere that says the champion gets any advantage in the scoring. The only advantage the champion is supposed to get is he keeps his title on a draw. Title fights should be judged exactly the same way as non title fights. Close rounds should go to the man that really won them be it the champ or the challenger. These days there are usually 4 to 6 so called champions in damn near every weight class. So many people wrongly and stupidly believing you must beat the hell out of them to get a win. What a mess. If you fairly beat the champion by a single point you should be the new champ. In reality Fury beat Wilder by a few points and should be the new champ but wrong scorecards made the fight a draw.

Why is that? Well, that's because it's a tradition in boxing. The challenger has to take it convincingly from the champion. Arguably, Fury did not do that. Second point: Fury was risk adverse as you stated and as a result failed to impress the judges. You need to take chances in boxing to obtain the glory. Judges don't want to see pitter patter followed by a fighter retreating and dancing around not punching. Third point: this is boxing and controversial decisions are the norm rather than the exception. Wilder was having an off night, due to overtraining/sickness or whatever and Fury should have pressed for the KO so to not leave it to the judges. Although I've never agreed with the idea that the belt must be taken from the champion, it can definitely sway the way judges are scoring. Judging by the scorecards, if Gvozdyk did not press the action against Stevenson and stopped him, it's possible that he would've lost the fight as well. Adonis has shocking power just like Wilder, but he took the risks necessary to ensure victory. I wish that Fury had taken more offensive risks.

Hurt Wilder in nearly every round, and twice in the rounds he was knocked down!No, he didn't. Face reality. Fury is not a big puncher. He is not a heavyweight Paulie and he is a decent puncher with a good number of his wins coming by KO but is not a bomber. Ortiz hurt Wilder but Fury never hurt Wilder that much.Fury also failed to knock down that walking punching bag he fought just before he fought Wilder.

This is absolute hogwash nonsense. The Marquees of Queensbury Rules have a scoring criteria if you do better in those you win, simple as that They don't want to see potter patter? they also don't want to see a guy missing with wild punches looking like a damn novice Wilder having an off night? Haha. If he'd have faced Fury in his 40 fights he probably would have had 40 off nights. Your whole post is opinion, conjecture, and excuses I've been followed boxing for over 20 years, how come I've heard and read from boxing fans, pundits and commentators - that the challenger has to take the title convincingly? Did I just make that up? Did I hear wrong? Is that not a typical theme in boxing? I think I've heard Max Kellerman say something to that affect.

So much respect for this post. This also reminds me of floyd vs canelo as well, where most people don't realise how much canelo hurt floyd in that fight as well. Both men were hurt by the end of this fight and it's no surprise they are in no rush for a rematch in their next fight. Thanks very much

Why is that? Well, that's because it's a tradition in boxing. The challenger has to take it convincingly from the champion. Arguably, Fury did not do that. Second point: Fury was risk adverse as you stated and as a result failed to impress the judges. You need to take chances in boxing to obtain the glory. Judges don't want to see pitter patter followed by a fighter retreating and dancing around not punching. Third point: this is boxing and controversial decisions are the norm rather than the exception. Wilder was having an off night, due to overtraining/sickness or whatever and Fury should have pressed for the KO so to not leave it to the judges. This is absolute hogwash nonsense. The Marquess of Queensbury Rules have a scoring criteria if you do better in those you win, simple as that They don't want to see pitter patter? they also don't want to see a guy missing with wild punches looking like a damn novice Wilder having an off night? Haha. If he'd have faced Fury in his 40 fights he probably would have had 40 off nights. Your whole post is opinion, conjecture, and excuses

Didn't wilder say his power was respectable? Fury is defensive minded so I doubt he commits to power. I've seen Tyson unload on bag and he looks powerful.

And why is that? Totally illogical. If you want to win the title, you win the fight. Whether it be by one point or by 100 points. And the reason Fury didn't keep putting pressure on him is because that's taking unnecessary risk when he's outboxing him and Wilder is as devastating a puncher as he is. That's one of the cliches in boxing that I absolutely hate. I agree with you 100%

Why does it seem like if you don't have absolutely, paralyzing power in both hands that makes you feather fisted (on this forum) Does he have 1 punch KO power? No. He has solid power. He buzzed Wilder a few times and clearly had enough power to keep Klit and Wilder at bay. If he was feather fisted, we would've seen both guys I named throw caution to the wind and throw a lot more.

And why is that? Totally illogical. If you want to win the title, you win the fight. Whether it be by one point or by 100 points. And the reason Fury didn't keep putting pressure on him is because that's taking unnecessary risk when he's outboxing him and Wilder is as devastating a puncher as he is. Why is that? Well, that's because it's a tradition in boxing. The challenger has to take it convincingly from the champion. Arguably, Fury did not do that. Second point: Fury was risk adverse as you stated and as a result failed to impress the judges. You need to take chances in boxing to obtain the glory. Judges don't want to see pitter patter followed by a fighter retreating and dancing around not punching. Third point: this is boxing and controversial decisions are the norm rather than the exception. Wilder was having an off night, due to overtraining/sickness or whatever and Fury should have pressed for the KO so to not leave it to the judges.

I don't usually play the I've boxed so I know card, but in this case it's very relevant. Fury buzzed Wilder several times, the people who don't see it usually don't have ring experience. I know this because I never used to be able to see it as a kid but picked up boxing in my late teens and then you start noticing. He has pop and Wilder whilst not being wobbled or knocked down was stopped in his tracks several times. I would say Fury's power is more comparable to Floyd's at welterweight then Paulie. So much respect for this post. This also reminds me of floyd vs canelo as well, where most people don't realise how much canelo hurt floyd in that fight as well. Both men were hurt by the end of this fight and it's no surprise they are in no rush for a rematch in their next fight.

and still put him to sleep https://i.imgur.com/3ieQ4Or.jpg https://media.giphy.com/media/1PgPvWLfXGkCY/giphy.gif Then, Fury woke up and out-boxed Wilder for the rest of the round.

I don't usually play the I've boxed so I know card, but in this case it's very relevant. Fury buzzed Wilder several times, the people who don't see it usually don't have ring experience. I know this because I never used to be able to see it as a kid but picked up boxing in my late teens and then you start noticing. He has pop and Wilder whilst not being wobbled or knocked down was stopped in his tracks several times. I would say Fury's power is more comparable to Floyd's at welterweight then Paulie.

This. While I was watching the fight, I was thinking that had Fury let his hands go and pressed the fight more, he would have definitely KO'd Wilder. There was a moment in the fight where Fury landed a multi-punch combo and had Wilder going backwards in a defensive posture; only to back off and let Wilder reset. Fury should have scored the KO; if you want to win the title, you need to take it forcefully. And why is that? Totally illogical. If you want to win the title, you win the fight. Whether it be by one point or by 100 points. And the reason Fury didn't keep putting pressure on him is because that's taking unnecessary risk when he's outboxing him and Wilder is as devastating a puncher as he is.