I thought we should try to settle this issue of how the media viewed the fight. These are the verifiable sources I've been able to find so far. If I've made any mistake tell me and I will correct it. Also if you have any other verified sources to add please post them.
Outlets that had Wilder winning:-
Dan Rafael (ESPN) 114-112
Lance Pugmire (LA Times) 114-112
Bob Velin (PBC/Freelance?) 114-112
Pro Boxers that had Wilder winning:-
Bernard Hopkins
Outlets that had Fury winning:-
Steve Kim (ESPN) 115-112
Wil Esco (badlefthook.com) 114-112
The Guardian 115-111
The Telegraph 115-111
Brian Campbell (cbssports.com) 115-111
Patrick Stumberg (mmamania.com) 116-110
Mookie Alexander (bloodyelbow.com) 115-111
Peter Kahn (forbes.com) 115-111
The Ring (panel)
Jai Bednall (news.com.au) 114-112
Steve Farhood (Showtime) 115-111
Mike Coppinger (******.com) 116-110
Keith Idec (boxingscene.com) 114-112
Cliff Rold (boxingscene.com) 114-112
Paulie Malignaggi (Showtime) 115-111
John Raspanti (maxboxing.com) 114-112
Pro boxers that had Fury winning:-
Lennox Lewis
Andre Ward
Floyd Mayweather
Roy Jones
Oleksandr Usyk
The Draw:-
Brian Mahoney (Associated Press) 113-113
Greg Beacham (Associated Press) 113-113
Andreas Hale (sportingnews.com) 113-113
Matthew Wells (fansided.com) 113-113
Kevin Iole (yahoo.com) 113-113
Norm Frauenheim (15rounds.com) 113-113
Mike Rosenthal (boxingscene.com) 113-113
Joe Santoliquito (******.com) 113-113
Joe DePaolo (Washington Post) 114-114
Pro boxers that had it a Draw:-
Jarrell Miller
Running Total:
Fury 21/35 (60%)
Wilder 4/35 (11%)
Draw 10/35 (29%)
sources:-
https://www.boxingscene.com/deontay-wilder-tyson-fury-boxing-insiders-weigh-on-scoring--134267
http://www.mmadecisions.com/decision/9615/Tyson-Fury-vs-Deontay-Wilder
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/boxing/2018/12/02/lennox-lewis-leads-condemnation-judges-scoring-tyson-fury-denied/r
https://www.boxingscene.com/forums/showthread.php?t=800466
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OhPR8ex-RGs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_T222DGmd70
https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/wilder-sees-missed-opportunity-in-first-viewing-of-fury-draw/2018/12/06/390a43ca-f9ac-11e8-8642-c9718a256cbd_story.html?utm_term=.754f81383b81
https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2018/12/01/deontay-wilder-vs-tyson-fury-fight/
https://www.apnews.com/d71a27179bba42c4995afa42f1de1f36
Apparently "******.com" is a bad word on this forum so that source doesn't show. :D
EDIT: Added boxers' scores.
Come on, this was a robbery as much as Canelo vs GGG was...and as much as Ward vs Kovalev was......and WHO got the gift decision in ALL of them fights? The Home fighter!
hahah just stop, please. Asinine rhetoric
I've figured it out! Mike Rosenthal is the WBC WBA IBF poster. :D
-pompous attitude
-extreme hypocrisy
-hates Rings magazine (was fired by them)
-says his colleagues would shun him if he was found out
Very true. Wilder threw a hundred more punches and it definitely helped him. If a round is close, some judges are going to give it to the guy that tried to make a fight of it as opposed to the guy who was backing off. All a matter of preference. But I could see how someone could have Wilder winning the first 4 rounds for that reason, even though I could also see giving Fury the first 4 rounds. That's where a lot of this controversy comes from.
I had him winning 1,5 probably 2 and of course the two knockdown.
Very true. Wilder threw a hundred more punches and it definitely helped him. If a round is close, some judges are going to give it to the guy that tried to make a fight of it as opposed to the guy who was backing off. All a matter of preference. But I could see how someone could have Wilder winning the first 4 rounds for that reason, even though I could also see giving Fury the first 4 rounds. That's where a lot of this controversy comes from.
hahah just stop, please. Asinine rhetoric
I wish I would have saved the link. A trainer was talking about scoring. He was saying that he taught how to block punches with slipping and using the gloves to parry. Problem was judges didnt get it. On the other hand West coast fighters were taught to throw a lot of punches in combination. The judges have a hard seeing what actually landed but give the fighter credit for some of the punches that didn't land. It's a real problem that put his fighters at a disadvantage.
I agree Fury had some great rounds but fights are scored on a round by round method. I think a lot of people got seduced by the Fury backstory and lost perspective.
Very true. Wilder threw a hundred more punches and it definitely helped him. If a round is close, some judges are going to give it to the guy that tried to make a fight of it as opposed to the guy who was backing off. All a matter of preference. But I could see how someone could have Wilder winning the first 4 rounds for that reason, even though I could also see giving Fury the first 4 rounds. That's where a lot of this controversy comes from.
That's the problem with the guys giving Fury 10 rounds. He just didn't land very much. Slightly slightly more than Wilder, yes, but his punches weren't as damaging. It was impressive how much he made Wilder miss, but if you don't land anything of consequence, judges are often going to give the benefit of the doubt to the aggressor. Fury had some brilliant brilliant rounds. But there were also plenty of rounds with very little going on.
I wish I would have saved the link. A trainer was talking about scoring. He was saying that he taught how to block punches with slipping and using the gloves to parry. Problem was judges didnt get it. On the other hand West coast fighters were taught to throw a lot of punches in combination. The judges have a hard seeing what actually landed but give the fighter credit for some of the punches that didn't land. It's a real problem that put his fighters at a disadvantage.
I agree Fury had some great rounds but fights are scored on a round by round method. I think a lot of people got seduced by the Fury backstory and lost perspective.
In fights involving a Golden Boy fighter, sure. But in a PBC fight with a foreign fighter in no way affiliated with BGP? Pointless. They have no agenda.
Yet you claimed dan Rafael did because he picked wilder as the winner. Gbp associated reporters have a bias against Haymon associated fighters. Their scores should be taken with a grain of salt.
Did lance score it for wilder based on race?
correct. 9-3 Fury.
I had it 7-5 Fury, but I have no problem with 9-3. I scored the first four rounds 2-2, but could easily see 4-0 Fury or 4-0 Wilder depending on what you're looking for.
What fighter and what piece?
Hahahaha. I'm not going to tell you who I am unless it's putting six figures in my pocket. Move on.
Surely if your view is completely dismissed, ridiculed and not believed then you do care.
Nope. Not at all. I post the truth. Whoever believes it is who believes it. Doesn't affect me.
fan boy who gave a ridiculous story of a shared account of boxing "myth busters" that all post in the exact same structure and style.
Only reason anybody found out there were multiple users is because people kept pointing out the different posting styles and asked if I had multiple personalities. So no, we don't use the exact same structure and style.
well I guess there's no journalistic integrity left out there...everyone works for someone.
The problem is there's so little money in being a boxing reporter that you're almost forced to play favorites for perks.
Golden Boy owns Ring Magazine.
CBS Sports owns BoxingScene.
Top writers are hired to work as announcers or interviewers or podcasters, etc by DAZN, ESPN, PBC, etc.
Integrity is hard to find, or non-existent. Integrity leaves you bankrupt.
I had a piece of a fighter on that Boston card. Have no involvement with the MSG show and have no interest in that fight. No reason to make the trip.
A few people have surely figured it out, but nobody that would run their mouth or cause trouble for me. It would be idiotic though for me to publicly confirm who I am. Especially when there's nothing in it for me.
Because I couldn't care less about whether people here believe me. I'm paid to correct mistakes, I do my job, I get paid. The goal here isn't to be believed, the goal is just to correct the false info.
My professional opinion has consistently been that I believed PBC was heading in the right direction and would secure a paid network TV deal when the time buys ended. Everyone said I was crazy, but I was right.
I wasn't saying all that stuff because I was "pro-PBC," I was saying it because that was my honest analysis. If I thought PBC was going to fail, I would have said that.
I don't think DAZN's business model can work. I hope it does. They pay well. It doesn't make me anti-DAZN just because I think they'll ultimately fail. That's just my honest opinion.
What fighter and what piece?
Surely if your view is completely dismissed, ridiculed and not believed then you do care. Nobody is believing your "corrected info". Do the people paying you monitor you and say you are doing a good job? Surely they'd see your kind of an ongoing joke on this site and cut their losses? Showing who you are would add a ton of credence to what you say and wouldn't upset anyone. Quite the opposite as people would lend your ramblings some credibility rather than laugh at a guy who comes across as a fan boy who gave a ridiculous story of a shared account of boxing "myth busters" that all post in the exact same structure and style.
Wilder is with Haymon and Oscar hates Haymon.
Ward & Kovalev weren't with Golden Boy, but it didn't stop them from stripping Stevenson. If it harms Haymon, Oscar is all for it.
well I guess there's no journalistic integrity left out there...everyone works for someone. I don't necessarily disagree with what you're saying, but I'd like to think most boxing writers would rather score a fight honestly as opposed to looking like an idiot just to toe the company line...especially for scoring that doesn't really impact anything. the vast majority of time it's actual judges that turn in suspect cards, and that's a problem.