Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Comments Thread For: Barry Hearn On Usyk-Joshua: If We Had Won On Points I Would've Felt As Though We Stole Something

Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #21
    Originally posted by MrShakeAndBake View Post

    It was a loaded judge, by Eddy
    It was pretty slick by Hearn.

    Buy off the "neutral" US judge, hope AJ legitimately wins 5-6 rounds then watch the biased UK judge rob Usyk. Thus, a split decision win would be almost guaranteed.

    Except AJ could only win 3-4 rounds, so the plan failed. That same UK judge only gave Usyk 7 rounds in the first fight too

    Comment


    • #22
      Originally posted by Good ol' Douglas View Post

      It was pretty slick by Hearn.

      Buy off the "neutral" US judge, hope AJ legitimately wins 5-6 rounds then watch the biased UK judge rob Usyk. Thus, a split decision win would be almost guaranteed.

      Except AJ could only win 3-4 rounds, so the plan failed. That same UK judge only gave Usyk 7 rounds in the first fight too
      Serious question... Do you really believe any of that?

      Is it more likely that there was a bribery conspiracy (though not extending to the UK judge), or is it more likely that the US judge simply scored favourably to Joshua in close rounds?

      Comment


      • #23
        Originally posted by mattr View Post
        Tiger Woods was the only black guy in a white mans sport, and he dominated it for years.
        There have been mostly black boxers before Joshua, and many better than him.
        Nonsense statement by Barry. AJ and Woods have not had similar careers at all.
        Muhammad Ali was the biggest thing ever in boxing 60 years ago!
        Tiger & AJ is a bad comparison by old Bazz. I think Joe Louis gets the credit for that to be frank.

        I thought the rest of his comments were ok though. Although, people keep saying AJ did better this fight, I don't see that.

        Comment


        • #24
          Originally posted by Toffee View Post

          Serious question... Do you really believe any of that?

          Is it more likely that there was a bribery conspiracy (though not extending to the UK judge), or is it more likely that the US judge simply scored favourably to Joshua in close rounds?
          Dismissing something as a "conspiracy" is a fallacy, not an argument.

          Fury vs. AJ would have been the biggest boxing event in the modern era outside Floyd vs. Pacman and McGregor.

          Corruption is normal in boxing, just look at the cash cow Canelo, Bivol won 10 rounds yet the fight was scored 7-5 x3

          The US judge only had to find 7 rounds for the golden goose, so yeah, "close rounds" is a great excuse. In this case, constant incompetency is never punished? Hmm...

          It is not like Hearn, or his people, have to slip the judge a brown envelope. They just do him "favours", it is a dirty game, kid.

          Comment

          Working...
          X
          TOP