TBRB moves Fury ahead of Wilder in their rankings.

[jglvz256]

I have no agenda other than the truth. I spoke to as many people on press row as I could and the rough percentage was 40% Fury, 40% draw, 20% Wilder. BoxingScene then posted an article of the experts they spoke to, and the percentages were very similar.

You say you've done research and found 60% scoring for Fury. Fine. That's still not a robbery.

I didn't do research, I just counted up the scores correctly instead of just continually posting made up figures.

60% Fury, 12% Wilder is a pretty big gap to me. I can only find 3 experts that gave the fight to Wilder. Do you really not have any more?

Anyway you told me you bought the PPV, so why did you do that if you were at ringside?

[N/A]

60% Fury, 12% Wilder is a pretty big gap to me.

Would be a big gap if Wilder won the fight, but the fight was a draw. So no, 60/40 isn't a big gap. Your numbers would only suggest a robbery if Wilder had been declared the winner. When 40%, by your count, don't have Fury winning, you can't say Fury was robbed by a draw.

Anyway you told me you bought the PPV, so why did you do that if you were at ringside?

Same reason Iole, Rafael and so many others still bought the PPV. To watch the televised version on our DVRs when we got home.

[koolkc107]

Inconsistency is why outfits like Ring and TBRB continue to lose validity.

TBRB was formed to supposedly avoid the mistakes and bias THEY THOUGHT might happen with the Ring's panel.

Pity that the only thing we got was TWO inconsistent ratings boards...

[jglvz256]

Would be a big gap if Wilder won the fight, but the fight was a draw. So no, 60/40 isn't a big gap. Your numbers would only suggest a robbery if Wilder had been declared the winner. When 40%, by your count, don't have Fury winning, you can't say Fury was robbed by a draw.

They're not *my* figures, they are the correctly added figures from the sources that we both used.

I guess we'll just have to disagree on the margin of the 60-12(28). I request you stop posting the "60% of experts didn't give it to Fury" disinformation though.

[N/A]

They're not *my* figures, they are the correctly added figures from the sources that we both used.

I guess we'll just have to disagree on the margin of the 60-12(28). I request you stop posting the "60% of experts didn't give it to Fury" disinformation though.

No, they are your figures. You are the one deciding who to count. BoxingScene's list had it 6 for Tyson fury, 3 for Deontay Wilder, 5 even. That's 40% Fury winning, 60% Fury not winning, which is what I found as well polling press row.

You have 60/40 in the other direction. 60% Fury winning, 40% Fury not winning. So again, a draw is not a robbery. Whether 20% had Wilder winning or only 12%, you could try to cry robbery if Wilder was named the winner last Saturday, but he wasn't. The fight was ruled a draw. A draw was a very common score on press row. Therefore you can't logically call a draw a robbery.

[jglvz256]

No, they are your figures. You are the one deciding who to count. BoxingScene's list had it 6 for Tyson fury, 3 for Deontay Wilder, 5 even. That's 40% Fury winning, 60% Fury not winning, which is what I found as well polling press row.

You have 60/40 in the other direction. 60% Fury winning, 40% Fury not winning. So again, a draw is not a robbery. Whether 20% had Wilder winning or only 12%, you could try to cry robbery if Wilder was named the winner last Saturday, but he wasn't. The fight was ruled a draw. A draw was a very common score on press row. Therefore you can't logically call a draw a robbery.

They are copied exactly from the boxingscene list with extra ones that were not on that list. I asked you for input but between us we can't find more than 3 experts on the planet that scored it for Wilder. Or to use your preferred method of describing it, "88% of experts didn't think Wilder won." Plus that one bizarre scorecard that gave Wilder the majority of rounds, and therefore an overall draw.

[koolkc107]

They have a fairly clear and consistent policy and there's a good number of respected names in the 70 odd who make up the panel. Most importantly they keep you up to date and explain the rationale behind every decision they make. You don't have to - and I don't - always agree with their every ranking, but they're far, far, better than any of the orgs and free from the stench of conflicting interest that clings to The Ring.

They are neither clear nor consistent.

And, they are getting as bad as the Ring panel they were supposed to be better than.

[N/A]

They are copied exactly from the boxingscene list with extra ones that were not on that list.

Right, you decided who to add. It's your list.

I asked you for input

You asked me to add to your list. I don't want to add to your list. I want to delete from your list because you added people that shouldn't be on there.

Or to use your preferred method of describing it, "88% of experts didn't think Wilder won."

But he didn't win. The fight was ruled a draw. You can't cry robbery over him winning when he didn't win. And you can't cry robbery over a draw when even by your own numbers, 40% either had it a draw or Wilder winning. That's not a robbery.

[jglvz256]

Right, you decided who to add. It's your list.

You asked me to add to your list. I don't want to add to your list. I want to delete from your list because you added people that shouldn't be on there.

My list is of verifiable sources I could find. I have not deliberately left any out. I have not added any imaginary sources. If there are sources that should be on the list tell me in the thread. If there are sources that should not be on the list tell me in the thread.

[N/A]

My list is of verifiable sources I could find. I have not deliberately left any out.

That is the problem with your list. You don't have any standards.