Comments Thread For: Fury: Wilder Will Never Get a Shot at Me For What He's Said

[kafkod]

Eeeeh, maaaybe, maybe not. I mean for Fury isn't it NOT about the money? Didn't he donate all the money he made from their first fight? So is his punishment to not give Wilder another paycheck IF that is true? That's a potential theory. The other theory could be he doesn't want to give Wilder the potential to land a "lucky" punch.

I completely get you there, but I honestly would rather Fury do what I was mentioning and just beat Wilder's a$$ for all the things he said. It makes the fight a heck of a lot more interesting because now we can see what a "100%" Wilder can really do and will 100% legitimize Fury's win. Listen, if Fury won again, there is no more excuses Wilder can cook up to justify it. He gets 1 chance, that's all.

As a fight fan, I want to see this.

Strange how Wilder is always 100 percent fit before he fights Fury, then has all kinds of ****** things wrong with him after he gets his arse kicked.

[Lemonhead_Jeff]

You have that the wrong way round. It would be Wilder who had to prove his allegations, not Fury who had to disprove them.

And the floppy glove photos/videos are from the first fight, so they wouldn't be relevant to allegations made about the second fight.

Same guys, 2 different fights, get it?

No, I think YOU have it wrong.
Fury cant complain that he is being slandered
without proving, without a reasonable doubt, that
Wilder's claims are untrue.
If Tyson initiates a lawsuit, the onus is on Tyson
to offer proof.
Not proof that Wilder said something about him,
but proof that Wilder's statements were unfounded.


"There are several things a person must prove to establish that libel has taken place. In the United States, a person must prove that the statement was false, caused harm, and was made without adequate research into the truthfulness of the statement. These steps are for an ordinary citizen. For a celebrity or public official, a person must prove the first three steps, and that the statement was made with the intent to do harm or with reckless disregard for the truth"

[richardt]

Tyson Fury would never consider suing Wilder over
defamation, because the court would require Fury
to actually explain the photos & videos that have
ignited the glove controversy.

To successfully sue Wilder for defamation, Fury
would have to offer proof that Wilder's accusations
are unfounded. The fact that the Nevada Commission
did not find any skulduggery would bode well for
Fury, but the photos/videos would be scrutinized,
and boxing experts would be called-in to provide
testimony regarding Fury's visibly floppy gloves.

Fury doesn't want that.

Flip that 180 degrees. The burden of proof is on the accuser, not the one being accused.

[Ray*]

And what about Wilder dissing Floyd and calling him fake for offering to help and saying no one reached out to him. Floyd probably thought he was still fighting, “why do I need to call to help him, I’m the A side!” LOL!!!!

That’s Wilder’s insecurities for all to see. If you are not underneath him licking his as* then you are a hater.

He had a problem with Paulie M for speaking the truth about his first fight with Fury, he had a problem with Jack Riess and Teddy atlas.

Even in the first fight he had an issue with Mayweather scoring the first 5 rounds to Fury. He really is a joke.

[Lunchbucket]

The correct way to make an accusation like this is to go to a court with some evidence of your claim, not to make your case on social media. Going to court means you're really trying to prove your claim. Accusing someone of cheating on social media means u are attempting to tarnish the results of what we all saw take place in the ring. It means u are trying to create a buzz around the issue and breathe life into it, by creating a negative controversy, as opposed to actually trying to prove it. As such, he doesn't deserve a rematch. Let those two asswhippings stand for all of history. He was clearly outboxed in the 1st fight for at least 10 rounds, swinging at air looking real ******. 2nd fight he was beat like a naughty toddler, punished severely and saved by his coach. Despite this narrative he's trying to create, that fight will go down in history as one of the best stoppages ever by a trainer, right up there with eddie futch stopping frazier vs. ali. There was no controversy about it whatsoever. He was in the corner battered, bleeding from his ears, nose and mouth, weakened, defenseless, getting hit with everything and throwing nothing meaningful in return. He was about to get knocked cold. And for the record, I'm American, black, not a Brit. I'm a real boxing fan, and that's just the facts

This exactly. Thank you for posting.

[Lemonhead_Jeff]

you mean the various boxing experts that have laughed at this conspiracy?

No, I mean the ones who have taken the time to look
at the images/videos. Not the ones who just brush-it-off,
with a laugh, without even bothering to look.
I guess laughing it off is easier than trying to offer
reasonable explanations gloves flopping around like that.

Here is a former, multi-time world champion, offering
a reasonable explanation for floppy gloves:

[pollywog]

Wilder might be better off going after Tyson's lil bro, Tommy, and cousin, Baby Hughie in the ring.

Beat the crap outta them and make it personal that Fury the elder feels the need to defend the family honour.

Worked for the klitschkos...

[Lemonhead_Jeff]

Flip that 180 degrees. The burden of proof is on the accuser, not the one being accused.

Right, and if FURY initiates a lawsuit, that makes FURY
the accuser. Accusing Wilder of slander.
I don't understand why that is so hard for people
on here to understand.

[Aussiebox2019]

It will all depend where wilder ends up in the WBC heavyweight rankings...fury may be forced at some point... Of wilder vs Dillion/povetkin winner Whyte for the Mando spot ...that then will face fury..fury will retire soon anyway after fighting Joshua

[kafkod]

No, I think YOU have it wrong.
Fury cant complain that he is being slandered
without proving, without a reasonable doubt, that
Wilder's claims are untrue.
If Tyson initiates a lawsuit, the onus is on Tyson
to offer proof.
Not proof that Wilder said something about him,
but proof that Wilder's statements were unfounded.


"There are several things a person must prove to establish that libel has taken place. In the United States, a person must prove that the statement was false, caused harm, and was made without adequate research into the truthfulness of the statement. These steps are for an ordinary citizen. For a celebrity or public official, a person must prove the first three steps, and that the statement was made with the intent to do harm or with reckless disregard for the truth"

You really don't get it that the Athletic Commission inspectors examining Fury's gloves before and after the fight and finding no problem with them is all the proof he needs that Wilder's allegations are false?

It would then be down to Wilder to prove that he had reasonable grounds for believing that the commission inspectors, and his own manager, who watched Fury being gloved up and was satisfied that everything was ok, were all in the wrong.