‘I’m Mr Slim now’  Tyson Fury weighs in 26lbs lighter than rival Mariusz Wach 44%

By Press Association Sport Staff56%

7/23/2026, 1:09:41 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 11 faulty reasoning types, including Anchoring Bias, Representativeness Heuristic, and Recency Bias, with Optimism Bias as the most egregious example at 16.7% saturation with 39 hits. Analysis detected 252 faulty-reasoning hits from 234 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 47.2% and a BS Rank of 44% (12,300 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 56.20% of the article peer group.

Tyson Fury weighed in 26lbs lighter than former world title challenger Mariusz Wach ahead of Friday’s heavyweight showdown in Pattaya, Thailand. 
Fury scaled 265lbs, having clocked in at 267.9lbs before outpointing Arslanbek Makhmudov last time out in April, but Polish opponent Wach came in at 291.4lbs  17lbs heavier than his last fight in March. 
It is only the fourth time in 39 fights where Fury has been leaner than his opponent, most recently occurring in his first bout against domestic rival Derek Chisora 15 years ago. 
“I’m Mr Slim now,” said Fury after a lighthearted staredown with Wach, with the pair laughing and joking with each other. 
Former two-time world champion Fury added: “I’m getting sharper, fitter and stronger by the day. 
“I’m not banking on any fight happening that might not happen. 
I want to keep busy, I’m a fighter. 
This year is the year of Tyson Fury staying busy. 
Whatever happens, I’m just going to stay busy throughout the year now. 
I’ve had the one fight in two years, I want to box his head off. 
If it goes a little bit sooner than that then happy days. 
This is a real fighting man  he’s fought everybody over the last two decades. 
I’ve got to be switched on and take nobody as an easy touch.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 4.7%Press Association Sport Staff: 1.6%The Independent: 3.9%Confirmation Bias4.7%This article: 14.5%Press Association Sport Staff: 4.8%The Independent: 1.2%Anchoring Bias14.5%This article: 0.0%Press Association Sport Staff: 0.0%The Independent: 3.6%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 13.7%Press Association Sport Staff: 4.6%The Independent: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic13.7%This article: 0.0%Press Association Sport Staff: 0.0%The Independent: 0.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 6.4%Press Association Sport Staff: 7.8%The Independent: 1.3%Overconfidence Bias6.4%This article: 4.3%Press Association Sport Staff: 1.4%The Independent: 7.9%Framing Effect4.3%This article: 0.0%Press Association Sport Staff: 0.0%The Independent: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Press Association Sport Staff: 0.0%The Independent: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Press Association Sport Staff: 0.0%The Independent: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 16.7%Press Association Sport Staff: 11.1%The Independent: 2.2%Optimism Bias16.7%This article: 0.0%Press Association Sport Staff: 0.0%The Independent: 1.3%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Press Association Sport Staff: 0.0%The Independent: 10.4%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 12.8%Press Association Sport Staff: 4.3%The Independent: 2.0%Self-Serving Bias12.8%This article: 0.0%Press Association Sport Staff: 0.0%The Independent: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Press Association Sport Staff: 0.0%The Independent: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Press Association Sport Staff: 0.0%The Independent: 1.3%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Press Association Sport Staff: 0.0%The Independent: 0.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 6.4%Press Association Sport Staff: 4.3%The Independent: 2.5%Halo Effect6.4%This article: 0.0%Press Association Sport Staff: 0.0%The Independent: 0.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Press Association Sport Staff: 0.0%The Independent: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 13.7%Press Association Sport Staff: 9.1%The Independent: 1.8%Recency Bias13.7%This article: 0.0%Press Association Sport Staff: 0.0%The Independent: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Press Association Sport Staff: 0.0%The Independent: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Press Association Sport Staff: 0.0%The Independent: 1.7%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Press Association Sport Staff: 0.0%The Independent: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Press Association Sport Staff: 0.0%The Independent: 3.6%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 5.6%Press Association Sport Staff: 1.9%The Independent: 1.3%False Dilemma5.6%This article: 0.0%Press Association Sport Staff: 0.0%The Independent: 0.6%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Press Association Sport Staff: 0.0%The Independent: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Press Association Sport Staff: 2.1%The Independent: 4.0%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Press Association Sport Staff: 0.0%The Independent: 0.7%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Press Association Sport Staff: 0.0%The Independent: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Press Association Sport Staff: 2.1%The Independent: 6.1%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Press Association Sport Staff: 0.0%The Independent: 1.0%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Press Association Sport Staff: 0.0%The Independent: 3.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Press Association Sport Staff: 0.0%The Independent: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Press Association Sport Staff: 0.0%The Independent: 0.9%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Press Association Sport Staff: 0.0%The Independent: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Press Association Sport Staff: 0.0%The Independent: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Press Association Sport Staff: 0.0%The Independent: 1.8%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Press Association Sport Staff: 0.0%The Independent: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Press Association Sport Staff: 0.0%The Independent: 2.2%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Press Association Sport Staff: 0.0%The Independent: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Press Association Sport Staff: 0.0%The Independent: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Press Association Sport Staff: 0.0%The Independent: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Press Association Sport Staff: 0.0%The Independent: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Press Association Sport Staff: 0.0%The Independent: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Press Association Sport Staff: 0.0%The Independent: 2.6%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 9.0%Press Association Sport Staff: 3.0%The Independent: 2.0%Quote-first Misdirection9.0%This article: 0.0%Press Association Sport Staff: 0.0%The Independent: 6.0%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Press Association Sport Staff: 0.0%The Independent: 0.7%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Press Association Sport Staff: 0.0%The Independent: 0.7%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Press Association Sport Staff: 0.0%The Independent: 0.4%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Press Association Sport Staff: 0.0%The Independent: 0.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

234 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker52%attributed speech112writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageTyson Fury • 21 words • 100.0% coverageTyson Fury • 15 words • 0.0% coverageTyson Fury • 11 words • 0.0% coverageTyson Fury • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageTyson Fury • 12 words • 0.0% coverageTyson Fury • 15 words • 0.0% coverageTyson Fury • 12 words • 0.0% coverageTyson Fury • 15 words • 0.0% coverageTyson Fury • 13 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Tyson Fury

93%flagged-word coverage
122 attributed words100% of attributed speech68% writer coverage
0%10.0%20.0%Quote-first Misdirection+17.2 ptsWriter: 0.0%Tyson Fury: 17.2%17.2%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.