Wilder vs Fury 2 Debate

Jan 13, 2020
191
64
50
Experience only matters to a certain point, plenty of official judges in fights who have score more fights than either of us have will sometimes get it horribly wrong. That's the thing about scoring a fight, it's subjective and so 2 people can watch the same fight and come to different conclusions.

Personally barring the knockdowns the fight wasn't close at all. Even in those KD rounds Fury would of won those rounds barring the KD's. The only reason this fight was close on the scorecards was because of those knockdowns, Fury dominated long periods of the fight and I had him winning by 2 rounds meaning he won 8 of the 12 rounds.

The official punch stats confirm this view of the fight. Fury out landed Wilder in 9 of the 12 rounds and even if we disregard jabs and only look at power punches Fury landed more and Wilder only landed more power punches in 2 of the 12 rounds, you can guess which rounds.

Of course punch stats shouldn't decide a fight, we saw how that worked in the amateur game with the computer scoring and it sucked. But it's a nice information to have which can help confirm or disprove how a fight was viewed.

Fury also was the more accurate fighter, Wilder threw 103 more punches but landed fewer, which paints a picture of a fight where Wilder was missing a lot and that in regards to ring generalship aspect of scoring, it matters. When one fighter makes the other miss time and time again, in a fight where punches landed is pretty similar it should swing a close round to the more elusive fighters favour as they are the one controlling the pace and direction of the fight.

Fact is Fury's ring generalship was superior to Wilder's. He was dictating the fight, he was the one fighting his usual style, making this a fight fought at a low pace and also fought in the centre of the ring for most of the fight, where he wanted. Things like this decide close rounds. Wilder as many of his supporters have said, fought badly, got too wild right from the start, didn't fight his usual fight, that should score against a fighter, he wasn't able to fight his type of fight, couldn't dictate terms or pace.

Also Wilder's jab was negated. He was forced to throw it to the body because he usually couldn't land it to the head. Again that shows Fury controlling an aspect of the fight and that in regards to ring generalship means he wins the closer rounds. Also I personally don't score jabs to the body as having the same value as jabs to the head, it's harder to land to the head so it's a more meaning punch if you care comparing jabs landed.

So if in a close round where there really isn't much difference in punches landed, if you are scoring for the fighter who is being made to miss more, having the pace dictated to him, being forced to fight in areas of the ring he prefers not to be in and being made to fight outside of his usual style then I'm sorry you're scoring the fight wrong in my opinion. But as I said scoring is subjective, would be interested to hear why you think Wilder was winning the close rounds where there wasn't much to divide them in shots landed.
Fury wasn't doing anything but throwing, he had no pop no sting on his punches just swinging. When Wilder connected there was a sting an impact which is PRO boxing. i put far more into one ...ouch!....than 4/5 nohing punchs landing.

Those I watched the fight with a judge pretty much saw that same fight I did, the better more important punches were landed by Wilder.
 

kf3

Jul 17, 2012
5,083
2,594
South London
USA vs


Well lets see ya wanna talk Tom Molyneaux the slave who won his freedom and ended up in Europe fighting for the world title.

How about George "Little Chocolate" Dixon the first black to hold a world championship., story goes he had over 800 bouts.

Talk to me about Emile Griffith, Hurricane Carter, Dick Tiger, Kid Chocolate, Kid Gavilan, the other Jack Dempsey.

Dude, boxing historian here, ok? Wanna go all the way back and talk the bare knuckle days?

Trust me slick, I know boxing.

The best of times.......Leonard/Hagler/Duran/Hearns......right?
what the fuck are you talking about?

you wiki'd old names that i know more about than you, so fucking what? seriously, what the fuck does this bullshit have to do with your last bullshit about you not knowing how to read or score fights?
i'm at work, getting paid, you aint trolling me and wasting my time, you are giving me something to do while i get paid.

no one agrees with this shit, no one thinks you are a real person. there is no benefit to you and no negative to me.

i do sort of get it, life is hard, girls don't like you, you have no friends, that sucks man, i feel for you. but this aint the way to fill that gap.
 
Last edited:
May 25, 2013
6,678
3,131
Fury wasn't doing anything but throwing, he had no pop no sting on his punches just swinging. When Wilder connected there was a sting an impact which is PRO boxing. i put far more into one ...ouch!....than 4/5 nohing punchs landing.

Those I watched the fight with a judge pretty much saw that same fight I did, the better more important punches were landed by Wilder.
OK you and I differ here and honestly you're answer was what I expected. It's the whole puncher vs boxer debate and your preference is towards punchers.

You'll favour a guy landing a punch over another guy landing the same punch because one is deemed a puncher and the other is not and so even if one guy lands less or his shots don't land as clean they have greater value to you in regards to scoring because you value power more than anything else.

I prefer to value the quality of a shot based upon the effects on the fighter taking the shot rather than the perceived power of a supposed puncher. Reason for this is because durability can negate power. What I mean by this is a bigger punchers shots against some guys will be meaningless because their opponents chin means there power has little effect and then you get guys who don't punch as hard and are not deemed the puncher in a fight hurt the bigger puncher again and again during a fight because even though they hit with less power their opponents durability or lack of it means their weaker shots will have more effect.

This preference of punchers is why some wrongly scored the fight for Tito over Oscar for example, Tito lands one good shot which doesn't hurt Oscar but for some that would negate Oscar winning the other 2.5 mins of a the round. Personally I don't score like that.

It's the same with perceived lack of durability. One guys comes in with a perceived weak chin so every time he gets hit cleanly those punchers somehow are worth more value in the scoring of the round when in reality the other guy maybe the puncher and hurting the other guy more even though they are hitting a guy with a better chin. Lewis/Holyfield is a prime example of that.

Suffice to say I think labels like puncher or glass chin should be disregarded when scoring a fight, you score the fight based on what is happening and what you see not preconceived perceptions as that automatically bias' you in favour of one fighter based on your personal preferences.

So you'll probably always score a fight for a puncher if it's remotely close like Wilder/Fury because of this. While I understand how you scored in favour of Wilder now I still don't agree with it. Fact is Fury rolled with a lot of Wilder's punches meaning all the power mean't little because he wasn't landing cleanly. While Fury while having less power usually landed cleaner shots and I prefer accuracy over power when that power cannot be delivered when shots don't land cleanly.

As for watching a fight in a group personally I think that skews your scoring, other peoples opinions and bias can effect your own. I personally have always scored fights worse in a such a setting, I much prefer to watch fights alone, sober and so I can score then subjectively and not be influenced or impaired. So if anything the fact others around you confirming your scoring actually is a negative in my opinion, much like an echo chamber it just reconfirms your own personal bias or the bias of the group.
 
Reactions: Montezuma
Jan 13, 2020
191
64
50
what the fuck are you talking about?

you wiki'd old names that i know more about than you, so fucking what? seriously, what the fuck does this bullshit have to do with your last bullshit about you not knowing how to read or score fights?
i'm at work, getting paid, you aint trolling me and wasting my time, you are giving me something to do while i get paid.

no one agrees with this shit, no one thinks you are a real person. there is no benefit to you and no negative to me.

i do sort of get it, life is hard, girls don't like you, you have no friends, that sucks man, i feel for you. but this aint the way to fill that gap.
Then there is always real life......

Retired insurance sales, totally $$$$$$ set for life. Married with kids and grand kids, been into boxing since the days of Cassius Clay, actually saw him win his Olympic gold. Totally into the history of the sports, could teach The History of Boxing. Trust me you would get crushed trying i hang talking the history of this great sport.

All I see is some dude who needs to be agreed with, who can't handle others opinions, so he freaks with all that stupidity you just threw up. Did you really say.......you have no friends.....hahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!! Are you kidding me?

Remember those old Gillette friday night fights, of course you don't.

Trust me amigo 100% real 100 authenic.

Trolling is what little kids do, ok? I don't play that silliness,, ok?
 
Jun 23, 2017
1,404
1,730
31
Really want Fury to win, and think it’s too close to call with any real conviction, but if I had to, I would pick Wilder.

Fury’s a brilliant boxer but Wilder is that guy who only needs to catch you once. I don’t think Fury is savvy enough to avoid him for all 12.

Would love to be proven wrong though, he was robbed last time and has one of the best comeback stories in boxing.
 
Reactions: Bob Weaver

Hkbrit

You know you've made it when you have stalkers
Dec 6, 2019
1,013
561
22
Dyson Fury, the big dosser, the big idiot, he's getting put to sleep ohhhhh yes
 
Jul 6, 2019
1,817
2,027
30
I prefer to value the quality of a shot based upon the effects on the fighter taking the shot rather than the perceived power of a supposed puncher.
Yeah, that's really the correct way to do it.

You are supposed to judge fights on effective punching before any other criteria is considered, and the biggest proof of effective punching is the effect it has.
 
Reactions: Brighton Bomber
May 25, 2013
6,678
3,131
Yeah, that's really the correct way to do it.

You are supposed to judge fights on effective punching before any other criteria is considered, and the biggest proof of effective punching is the effect it has.
Yeah that's the criteria but I think a lot of people don't understand what effective punching really means.

Same with ring generalship which is one of the other criteria when scoring a fight. When there's a close round in terms of effective punching which as you say is the most important criteria, I then look at ring generalship and see if one fighter has done better here.