Tweet
We want good judges, not British. lol
-
-
Arum is right when he says that professional judges should remain neutral but the Rochin card has put an unnecessary spotlight on this fight for the judges to be right and CONSISTENT because that card was ridiculous. I'm yet to see a post that convinces me that Wilder won it wider than Fury did.
The problem with Arum saying that we shouldn't have British judges is that (because of scorecards like Rochin's) it adds a lot of irrational su****ion on the fight if it does go the distance (not that I think it will) if people saw it going the other way, immediately, its all about the judges being wrong. Isn't it better to have no American or British judges?
Can you image if Wilder won on the cards against Fury and the judges were all American!? It would do a lot of damage to the reputation of NSAC purely because Fury is 100 times the boxer that Wilder is and everyone automatically assumes that the judges are wrong as (literally) no-one can see Wilder putting on a boxing masterclass against the best HW boxer.
The first fight was controversial because of the scorecards, not that Fury got up and Jack Reiss isn't a perfect stopwatch for a 10 second count. You can argue that because the nationalities involved were mixed, Fury got the benefit of the doubt with the 12th round KD and it was balanced out with a split draw but Rochin's card suggested Wilder did more than two KD's - which is utter nonsense! With other countries putting up massive money for fights, the long term detriment of LV boxing could be down to NSAC being unable to be completely neutral. Arum isn't really helping by suggesting 3-American judges for this fight although I'm sure he is just trying to reduce the su****ion around neutrality - instead; its raising mine!
You aren't going to please everyone. As long as Wilder and Fury are happy with it, that's all that matters. I am praying for a KO victory and not a repeat of the first fight.Comment
-
I hoping this one don't see 12, that way we have a clear winner. That way, we can eliminate any and all controversy.Comment
-
I do think Wilder showed effective aggression during the first fight. That being said Fury was clearly the better fighter in the fight but I won't say I picked a winner or who it was I will say I was happy with the decision because we get to see it again.Comment
-
You could have Tyson Fury's dad, brother, and Ben Davidson as the three judges. I highly doubt the judges will have quite as much impact this time around.Comment
-
How about no British or American judges? Take the bias out completely & get a damn Mexican, Japanese & Russian judge or something like that. Anything thats neutral. Having the fight in America with at least one or two American judges and no British judges doesn't seem fair to Fury.
Take away the excuses and there will be none.Comment
-
All judges are biased. Everyone has their favourite fighters. People see what they want to see.Comment
-
There can easily be a clear winner if it goes 12. And either man can win it convincingly in 12. That's why we have a point system, knock downs, punch stats.
The problem with the first fight was that Wilder couldn't get anything going offensively and Fury was doing just barely enough to neutralize him. Fury was winning most of the rounds but by slim margins because he was being more defensive than offensive but his offense was just slightly better than Wilders. Then you get the 2 kds
(the 1st being the result of a right and left hand to the back of Furys head) mixed with people saying Fury didn't do enough to beat the champ (nothing to do with scoring a fight).
That's where the controversy came from. I had my money on Wilder and was pissing my pants til the 2nd kd. Then Fury got up and won the rest of the round after Wilder punched himself out. It thought for sure I had lost my bet but the draw saved me.
This time I'm not betting lolComment
Comment