moogie101 wrote:
Can you not read or just constantly looking to argue?
I stated quite clearly it was a "great achievement" to win the titles, but I have an issue with him being called fighter of the year. I think my main issue is with the word "fighter". But I can't keep saying the same thing over & again, maybe I could have your carer's details see if they can explain it to you in a way you might understand. Perhaps a picture book?
If you wasn't such a brain dead idiot you would realise that fighter is just a term for boxer, or should it go to cage fighter ir maybe a soldier? Pricks like you should f@ck off from this site you can't have a discussion you just try to insult when someone else has a different opion than you .anyways I haven't got time for this bollox as I'm packing to go to the Caribbean tonight and tomorrow I'll be lying in my hammock drinking a cold beer and you'll still be a unimportant weasel
Blah blah blah. You started the insults because apparently you know better than anyone else & then you get upset that people didn't agree with you & I replied in kind. Get over yourself. People like you are what ruins forums, prepared to have a pop & then when someone has a go back you have a little cry about it. Clearly touched a nerve.
The argument I'm making about the term "fighter" is clearly lost on you & yet I'm the brain-dead idiot?
Anyway enjoy your made up holiday, hope the imaginary sun doesn't burn you too much. This unimportant weasel is looking forward to my postcard, no doubt hand drawn with wax crayons.
oh yeah i'm making in up ........it'looks like it's going to be cold the next couple of weeks for you
stevedoc wrote:
If you wasn't such a brain dead idiot you would realise that fighter is just a term for boxer, or should it go to cage fighter ir maybe a soldier? Pricks like you should f@ck off from this site you can't have a discussion you just try to insult when someone else has a different opion than you .anyways I haven't got time for this bollox as I'm packing to go to the Caribbean tonight and tomorrow I'll be lying in my hammock drinking a cold beer and you'll still be a unimportant weasel
Blah blah blah. You started the insults because apparently you know better than anyone else & then you get upset that people didn't agree with you & I replied in kind. Get over yourself. People like you are what ruins forums, prepared to have a pop & then when someone has a go back you have a little cry about it. Clearly touched a nerve.
The argument I'm making about the term "fighter" is clearly lost on you & yet I'm the brain-dead idiot?
Anyway enjoy your made up holiday, hope the imaginary sun doesn't burn you too much. This unimportant weasel is looking forward to my postcard, no doubt hand drawn with wax crayons.
oh yeah i'm making in up ........it'looks like it's going to be cold the next couple of weeks for you
Just seems a strange thing to brag about on a boxing forum to a complete stranger when the topic had nothing to do with it. Also strange that you claimed to not have time to debate any further due to your excessive packing and yet here you are.
Blah blah blah. You started the insults because apparently you know better than anyone else & then you get upset that people didn't agree with you & I replied in kind. Get over yourself. People like you are what ruins forums, prepared to have a pop & then when someone has a go back you have a little cry about it. Clearly touched a nerve.
The argument I'm making about the term "fighter" is clearly lost on you & yet I'm the brain-dead idiot?
Anyway enjoy your made up holiday, hope the imaginary sun doesn't burn you too much. This unimportant weasel is looking forward to my postcard, no doubt hand drawn with wax crayons.
oh yeah i'm making in up ........it'looks like it's going to be cold the next couple of weeks for you
Just seems a strange thing to brag about on a boxing forum to a complete stranger when the topic had nothing to do with it. Also strange that you claimed to not have time to debate any further due to your excessive packing and yet here you are.
as i said packing done , look through my posts if you want and you'll see i mentioned i was going away already .not a big deal really it's not like i said i was renting necker island is it
moogie101 wrote:
Just seems a strange thing to brag about on a boxing forum to a complete stranger when the topic had nothing to do with it. Also strange that you claimed to not have time to debate any further due to your excessive packing and yet here you are.
CiganoBoxer wrote:Anyone else love seeing pain in the hearts of the Tyson Fury hater brigade when they read these negative comments on him ?
I personally love it
Finn got it right when he said that they don't understand boxing. Complaining that the fight wasn't entertaining, and? No one's calling it fight of the year, the only other realistic contender wasn't exactly involved in a couple of barnburners himself.
As for the other candidates suggested.
Postol - Since when is beating Lucas Matthyse better than beating Wladimir Klitschko?
Golovkin - Looked good as usual but Murray, Monroe and Lemieux isn't exactly fighter of the year opposition.
Alvarez - Beat Kirkland and Cotto. Kirkland has never lived up to the hype around him and Cotto's been on the slide for years now, good year for him but not FOTY.
Frampton - Getting laughable now, looked superb against Avalos, then down twice in the first round against an unproven Gonzalez and looked far from his best in the rest of the fight. Wasn't even Irish fighter of the year.
DeGale - Beat Dirrell, but made it hard for himself after a great start, then a similar performance against a shot Bute. Didn't beat Dirrell in his backyard either as claimed, he beat him in an empty arena in Boston, 650 miles from Dirrell's hometown, it's the equivalent of an American coming over here and beating Lee Haskins in the Shetland Islands.
Read my last comment back to finn,according to u and finn its the art of hitting and not getting hit right? So shouldnt floyd mayweather of won it the last quarter of a century? And dirrell is a yank is he not? So when,say callum smith fights for a world title against a yank in the 02 is this not classed as smith getting home advantage? I understand boxing alot pal what i dont understand is how fury won foty when he only had two fights in 2015 and ok one was against klitsckho but was that fight worthy of him winning foty? Imo NO. Its a forum were ppl discuss topics right? Like i said david haye went to valuev's base and stripped him.of his title against the odds according u,finn and the likes of haye should of been foty that year then
I have no idea what your point is, you're confusing yourself. Floyd Mayweather has won the award twice he was one of the favourites to win it this year! No Haye did not win fighter of the year for beating valuev, because valuev didnt hold the ring belt and neither did haye. The ring title is usually given the the ring title holder that has achieved the most that year. They will also nominate fighters who are highly ranked by them too but i cant recall a fighter who didnt hold the title or vacate the title that year ever winning it.
You do understand that the ring magazing own the ring title dont you? They would look pretty stupid giving the award to someone who doesn't hold their belt wouldn't they?
moogie101 wrote:
So I don't understand boxing because I don't agree with you? Ok. I'm not a Tyson fan, I think he's a clumsy oaf who spent his entire career being protected. Now I'll accept beating Vlad for the titles was an amazing achievement & fair play to him for his success
But it's Rings "Fighter" of the year. Not boxer. Not achievement. Not tactician. But fighter, Tyson Fury has not had a fight this year, great or otherwise. If Rings want to change it to Achievement of the year then fair enough then I say give him the award. But the word "fighter" has certain connotations in this sport & giving it to Tyson because he did just enough in a boring fight where neither engaged or looked like they wanted to be there is a joke.
Also people are talking like Fury gave some amazing display of hitting without being hit like he was Roy Jones Jr in his prime or something. He didn't. Have you seen the punch stats for the fight from both guys? Just laughable & yet we're meant to accept he's "fighter" of the year because a few guys on here have suddenly decided they like him now & anyone who doesn't isn't a boxing fan.
I think issue here is you are just making up your own criteria based on the word fighter. The award never has been or ever was for what you are talking about its just another phrase for boxer of the year. As i've already just stated to your buddy the ring fighter of the year is usually awarded the the most impressive ring title holder that year.
moogie101 wrote:
So I don't understand boxing because I don't agree with you? Ok. I'm not a Tyson fan, I think he's a clumsy oaf who spent his entire career being protected. Now I'll accept beating Vlad for the titles was an amazing achievement & fair play to him for his success
But it's Rings "Fighter" of the year. Not boxer. Not achievement. Not tactician. But fighter, Tyson Fury has not had a fight this year, great or otherwise. If Rings want to change it to Achievement of the year then fair enough then I say give him the award. But the word "fighter" has certain connotations in this sport & giving it to Tyson because he did just enough in a boring fight where neither engaged or looked like they wanted to be there is a joke.
Also people are talking like Fury gave some amazing display of hitting without being hit like he was Roy Jones Jr in his prime or something. He didn't. Have you seen the punch stats for the fight from both guys? Just laughable & yet we're meant to accept he's "fighter" of the year because a few guys on here have suddenly decided they like him now & anyone who doesn't isn't a boxing fan.
I think issue here is you are just making up your own criteria based on the word fighter. The award never has been or ever was for what you are talking about its just another phrase for boxer of the year. As i've already just stated to your buddy the ring fighter of the year is usually awarded the the most impressive ring title holder that year.
So how can fury be fighter of the year wen he isnt even in their top ten p4p list? It makes a mockery of their ratings. Bible of boxing? More like joke book
thechump wrote:So how can fury be fighter of the year wen he isnt even in their top ten p4p list? It makes a mockery of their ratings. Bible of boxing? More like joke book
He holds the ring title, the p4p list is a theoretical ranking system.
thechump wrote:So how can fury be fighter of the year wen he isnt even in their top ten p4p list? It makes a mockery of their ratings. Bible of boxing? More like joke book
Explain to me why someone outside of the top ten p4p can't be the fighter of the year.
Fury outboxed a dominant fighter who was regarded as virtually impossible to outbox, who had held the title for almost 10 years. He came in as a significant underdog (up to 5-1) and regenerated the heavyweight division and made it interesting again.
Perfect candidate for fighter of the year.
Those who make out Fury didn't throw many punches, ran, wasn't exciting and blah blah blah.... well that description is virtually attributable to ever Mayweather fight.
Fury did a great job of flummoxing Wlad, cut him, hurt him with the left hook and boxed a great fight.
thechump wrote:So how can fury be fighter of the year wen he isnt even in their top ten p4p list? It makes a mockery of their ratings. Bible of boxing? More like joke book
He holds the ring title, the p4p list is a theoretical ranking system.
So is the ring belt and its ranking system,WBC WBA IBF WBO these are the real world titles not some ring magazine belt,its like boxing monthly or boxing news bringing out a belt.
thechump wrote:So how can fury be fighter of the year wen he isnt even in their top ten p4p list? It makes a mockery of their ratings. Bible of boxing? More like joke book
He holds the ring title, the p4p list is a theoretical ranking system.
So is the ring belt and its ranking system,WBC WBA IBF WBO these are the real world titles not some ring magazine belt,its like boxing monthly or boxing news bringing out a belt.
Chump - I'm still not sure...do you think Fury should be Ring magazine fighter of the year or not??/
thechump wrote:So how can fury be fighter of the year wen he isnt even in their top ten p4p list? It makes a mockery of their ratings. Bible of boxing? More like joke book
He holds the ring title, the p4p list is a theoretical ranking system.
So is the ring belt and its ranking system,WBC WBA IBF WBO these are the real world titles not some ring magazine belt,its like boxing monthly or boxing news bringing out a belt.
I'm not sure what your point is but since fury was ranked as the champion for the WBO, WBA and IBF sanctioning bodies surely you have just countered your own argument.
Finn wrote:
He holds the ring title, the p4p list is a theoretical ranking system.
So is the ring belt and its ranking system,WBC WBA IBF WBO these are the real world titles not some ring magazine belt,its like boxing monthly or boxing news bringing out a belt.
I'm not sure what your point is but since fury was ranked as the champion for the WBO, WBA and IBF sanctioning bodies surely you have just countered your own argument.
My point is the ring magazing rankings or belt dont mean $hit and furys defeat of klit was soooo great for heavtweight boxing and a breathe of fresh air for the sport why did the IBF strip him? If it was so good they would of kept the strap on him right? In theory he holds the two weakest belts out the top 4 belts so whats ur point finn? We dont all have to agree with you ya know,u have ur opinion and i have mine its obvious you cant see mine and i sure as hell dont see yours cause he was NOT fighter of the year so lets leave it that ok buddy
Finn wrote:
He holds the ring title, the p4p list is a theoretical ranking system.
So is the ring belt and its ranking system,WBC WBA IBF WBO these are the real world titles not some ring magazine belt,its like boxing monthly or boxing news bringing out a belt.
Chump - I'm still not sure...do you think Fury should be Ring magazine fighter of the year or not??/
You haven't been very clear.....
Yo crazyboy have u been reading what iv put? If u have then you will know what i think
Chump, you are just talking sh it now. Anyone with any boxing knowledge knows how and why the IBF work. They wouldn't let anyone not face the mandatory. In theory, Wilders win over Stervaine is better than a win over Wlad as its for the WBC? Ok... And yes, Fury was THE FIGHTER OF THE YEAR
mickey1975 wrote: Chump, you are just talking sh it now. Anyone with any boxing knowledge knows how and why the IBF work. They wouldn't let anyone not face the mandatory. In theory, Wilders win over Stervaine is better than a win over Wlad as its for the WBC? Ok... And yes, Fury was THE FIGHTER OF THE YEAR
Did i say that??? No,dont put words in my mouth,the wbc is a better belt than the other 3 major belts. And regarding foty thats ur opinion and your entitles to it. My point is the ibf let wlad fight whoever and were cool with it as ling as he faced his mandatory,if fury was great for the heavyweight division the ibf would of let him have his rematch then fight their mandatory so in the ibf's eyes fury isnt a breathe of fresh air like all u fury nuthuggers are makin out FACT
mickey1975 wrote: Chump, you are just talking sh it now. Anyone with any boxing knowledge knows how and why the IBF work. They wouldn't let anyone not face the mandatory. In theory, Wilders win over Stervaine is better than a win over Wlad as its for the WBC? Ok... And yes, Fury was THE FIGHTER OF THE YEAR
Did i say that??? No,dont put words in my mouth,the wbc is a better belt than the other 3 major belts. And regarding foty thats ur opinion and your entitles to it. My point is the ibf let wlad fight whoever and were cool with it as ling as he faced his mandatory,if fury was great for the heavyweight division the ibf would of let him have his rematch then fight their mandatory so in the ibf's eyes fury isnt a breathe of fresh air like all u fury nuthuggers are makin out FACT
The IBF don't give a toss about whether Fury is a breath of fresh air to the heavyweight division or not though.
mickey1975 wrote: Chump, you are just talking sh it now. Anyone with any boxing knowledge knows how and why the IBF work. They wouldn't let anyone not face the mandatory. In theory, Wilders win over Stervaine is better than a win over Wlad as its for the WBC? Ok... And yes, Fury was THE FIGHTER OF THE YEAR
Oh and if i was to choose which fight id rather watch again wilder vs stervaine or fury vs klitschko id pick wilders fight every day of the week,while i was made up for fury for winning the titles it was a crap fight and i didnt think he was foty,nowt wrong with that is ther?
