jamesmcdonnell wrote:You're the one who made the comparison with undercard fights, not me.
Where did I say I go out of my way to watch undercard fights?
Thing about undercard fights, is you often don't remember the participants, because it's not the main event. It's like trying to remembering who came 3rd in the 100 meter final at the olympics.
Horse - I'm not sure whether you are trolling, drunk or just being contrarian.
I'm a boxing anorak, so I found Wlad v Tyson interesting as Fury had clear tactics of fighting at a slow pace, and being better at that slow pace than Wlad.
But nobody in their right mind would describe it as thrilling or a good fight - it was a train spotters type of fight.
Loynesy wrote:But nobody in their right mind would describe it as thrilling or a good fight - it was a train spotters type of fight.
I was thrilled.
Of course you were thrilled - you are ignorant to most of boxing history. Every week on this forum you are being exposed to fights and fighters many of us have been familiar with for decades, in your Horse's-52-week-watch-me-learn-about-boxing thread. A man winning a 12 rd decision landing less than 100 punches probably would impress a person who only watched Lewis/Bruno for the first time last week.
Why you think you can credibly debate this sport with anyone is beyond me. I'd like to think you're half playing a character, but look at your activity - you can't have any life at all outside this forum.
Tuan_Jim wrote:Of course you were thrilled - you are ignorant to most of boxing history. Every week on this forum you are being exposed to fights and fighters many of us have been familiar with for decades, in your Horse's-52-week-watch-me-learn-about-boxing thread. A man winning a 12 rd decision landing less than 100 punches probably would impress a person who only watched Lewis/Bruno for the first time last week.
Why you think you can credibly debate this sport with anyone is beyond me. I'd like to think your half playing a character, but look at your activity - you can't have any life at all outside this forum.
Tuan_Jim wrote:Of course you were thrilled - you are ignorant to most of boxing history. Every week on this forum you are being exposed to fights and fighters many of us have been familiar with for decades, in your Horse's-52-week-watch-me-learn-about-boxing thread. A man winning a 12 rd decision landing less than 100 punches probably would impress a person who only watched Lewis/Bruno for the first time last week.
Why you think you can credibly debate this sport with anyone is beyond me. I'd like to think your half playing a character, but look at your activity - you can't have any life at all outside this forum.
Pathetic post.
Why don't you grow up?
Your activity gives away so much of your real life. If "life" is the appropriate word here.
Loynesy wrote:But nobody in their right mind would describe it as thrilling or a good fight - it was a train spotters type of fight.
I was thrilled.
I was gripped too.
We had Fury who has been shown that he can be hurt, against the best current heavyweight about. His tactics made the fight, I was on the edge of my seat hoping a Wlad didn't land clean. Good fight.
To be honest I was mildly entertained by the fight but I was emotionally invested in hoping Wlad lost. If I didn't have that stake in the fight it would have been a horrific spectacle.
You can't just reel off the stats after the event and conclude it was a borefest. Actually during the fight there was a feeling of tension for me, just wondering when Wlad will land, and how Fury will react. Okay, it never happened, and after I felt mildly let down. But during the fight I was enjoying the "what if" factor.
SAPFO wrote:You can't just reel off the stats after the event and conclude it was a borefest. Actually during the fight there was a feeling of tension for me, just wondering when Wlad will land, and how Fury will react. Okay, it never happened, and after I felt mildly let down. But during the fight I was enjoying the "what if" factor.
Fury boxed to a perfect gameplan.
To be fair you get that with loads of fights, but when nothing happens you can reflect that actually, it wasn't great.
A football team going away from home, parking the bus and knocking it between the keeper and back four for ninety minutes may get the result they want. A batsman making ten runs in an hour whilst stubbornly refusing to play any shots may get the result he wants. Peter Ebdon taking the same amount of time to pot half a dozen balls as it takes Ronnie O'Sullivan to knock in a 147 may get the result he wants.
There is a reason they don't sell many tickets mind you.
jamesmcdonnell wrote:I'd say a lot of undercards contain more actual fighting. I don't go out of my way to watch undercard fights, nor pay for the priviledge and sit there to watch them excitedly.
I've been watching boxing avidly for almost 40 years, but I do actually like to see some punches landed. That was more like watching rhytmnic gymastics, or figure skating. I was bored out of my mind. There is a blend of skill and aggression to be had, Duran v Barkley for instance, brilliant defence and infighting, and also punches landed.
Why don't you take an example of a crap, unimportant fight and say how it is better than Wlad vs Fury, rather than taking the example of a relative classic?
jamesmcdonnell wrote:Watching doing his best attempt at a viennese waltz for the duration, whilst Wlad stood there feinting for 11 rounds, was not my idea of entertainment, nor was there much artistry to revel in. Wlad was as stiff as a board, and Fury whilst he showed decent movement, is nobody's simulacrum of a prime Ali. It was awful.
Again, comparing Fury to one of the World's top ATGs, rather than some undercard nobody.
You're the one who made the comparison with undercard fights, not me.
Where did I say I go out of my way to watch undercard fights?
Thing about undercard fights, is you often don't remember the participants, because it's not the main event. It's like trying to remembering who came 3rd in the 100 meter final at the olympics.
Plenty of us were absorbed by the fight, I was amused (and quite validated) throughout by Klitschko surrendering his belts in such a pathetic manner, and was hoping Fury would not slip up in the last couple of rounds, but in the last analysis it was an awful fight. The US braodcast, called by men who are usually Wladimir cheerleaders, were scathing in their criticism of Wlad and the 'action.'
Tuan_Jim wrote:Plenty of us were absorbed by the fight, I was amused (and quite validated) throughout by Klitschko surrendering his belts in such a pathetic manner, and was hoping Fury would not slip up in the last couple of rounds, but in the last analysis it was an awful fight. The US braodcast, called by men who are usually Wladimir cheerleaders, were scathing in their criticism of Wlad and the 'action.'
Tuan_Jim wrote:Plenty of us were absorbed by the fight, I was amused (and quite validated) throughout by Klitschko surrendering his belts in such a pathetic manner, and was hoping Fury would not slip up in the last couple of rounds, but in the last analysis it was an awful fight. The US braodcast, called by men who are usually Wladimir cheerleaders, were scathing in their criticism of Wlad and the 'action.'
I was into it for the same reason, but I was also laughing at the pathetic nature of the contest. It was compelling, but I can't imagine anyone rewatching it or enjoying it already knowing the result. There was no way I was going to sit through the rematch. If Evander was only in his late 40's he could have beaten either of them.
SaadOffTheDeck wrote:I was into it for the same reason, but I was also laughing at the pathetic nature of the contest. It was compelling, but I can't imagine anyone rewatching it or enjoying it already knowing the result. There was no way I was going to sit through the rematch. If Evander was only in his late 40's he could have beaten either of them.
SaadOffTheDeck wrote:I was into it for the same reason, but I was also laughing at the pathetic nature of the contest. It was compelling, but I can't imagine anyone rewatching it or enjoying it already knowing the result. There was no way I was going to sit through the rematch. If Evander was only in his late 40's he could have beaten either of them.
No, he couldn't.
Have you seen any of Evander Holyfield's fights, Horse? Or is he yet another icon of the sport whose fights you are still to explore? He had a trilogy with a bloke called Riddick Bowe, you should add them to your 52 Week Fight Challenge.
Tuan_Jim wrote:Have you seen any of Evander Holyfield's fights, Horse? Or is he yet another icon of the sport whose fights you are still to explore? He had a trilogy with a bloke called Riddick Bowe, you should add them to your 52 Week Fight Challenge.
Still keeping this embarrassing nonsense up are you?
SaadOffTheDeck wrote:I was into it for the same reason, but I was also laughing at the pathetic nature of the contest. It was compelling, but I can't imagine anyone rewatching it or enjoying it already knowing the result. There was no way I was going to sit through the rematch. If Evander was only in his late 40's he could have beaten either of them.
SaadOffTheDeck wrote:I was into it for the same reason, but I was also laughing at the pathetic nature of the contest. It was compelling, but I can't imagine anyone rewatching it or enjoying it already knowing the result. There was no way I was going to sit through the rematch. If Evander was only in his late 40's he could have beaten either of them.
No, he couldn't.
Could too!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Mid to late 40's Holyfield got beat up by old fat James Toney, and virtually shut out by Larry Donald and Sultan Ibragimov. Lost pretty wide to Byrd too if I remember correctly. He did win that exciting slugfest against Oquendo though
Mid to late 40's Holyfield got beat up by old fat James Toney, and virtually shut out by Larry Donald and Sultan Ibragimov. Lost pretty wide to Byrd too if I remember correctly. He did win that exciting slugfest against Oquendo though
The exciting slugfest was against Savarese. Toney wasn't fat for that one, he was povetkined to the gills. He would have beaten either of those guys too. Donald and Byrd were early 40's, he was all torn up with injuries and those guys would have always had a problematic style for him. Fury sticking his chin out would land him flat on his back.
Mid to late 40's Holyfield got beat up by old fat James Toney, and virtually shut out by Larry Donald and Sultan Ibragimov. Lost pretty wide to Byrd too if I remember correctly. He did win that exciting slugfest against Oquendo though
The exciting slugfest was against Savarese. Toney wasn't fat for that one, he was povetkined to the gills. He would have beaten either of those guys too. Donald and Byrd were early 40's, he was all torn up with injuries and those guys would have always had a problematic style for him. Fury sticking his chin out would land him flat on his back.
42 year old Savarese who hadn't had a meaningful fight in four years. And even with his chin stuck out, Fury was too tall for Vander to land a headbutt on
punchoutsb wrote:
Mid to late 40's Holyfield got beat up by old fat James Toney, and virtually shut out by Larry Donald and Sultan Ibragimov. Lost pretty wide to Byrd too if I remember correctly. He did win that exciting slugfest against Oquendo though
The exciting slugfest was against Savarese. Toney wasn't fat for that one, he was povetkined to the gills. He would have beaten either of those guys too. Donald and Byrd were early 40's, he was all torn up with injuries and those guys would have always had a problematic style for him. Fury sticking his chin out would land him flat on his back.
42 year old Savarese who hadn't had a meaningful fight in four years. And even with his chin stuck out, Fury was too tall for Vander to land a headbutt on
Toney
Holyfield/Savarese was easily one of the best Heavyweight fights in the last 15 years. Fury stuck his chin out bent over at the waist, easily tagged by a Holyfield hook. Toney was good for a minute at Heavyweight.
