The Mack is Back

jamesmcdonnell
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 45235
Joined: 12 Nov 2003, 06:11

Re: The Mack is Back

Post by jamesmcdonnell »

ShadrachSimmo wrote: 10 Jun 2018, 15:00
martinmrts wrote: 10 Jun 2018, 11:44 in what way is Tyson Fury a Mack, exactly ?
I know, what the fck is that about?
Well he weighs as much as a truck.
Grilling Machine
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 3163
Joined: 16 Sep 2005, 02:28

Re: The Mack is Back

Post by Grilling Machine »

clopixolacuphase wrote: 10 Jun 2018, 14:16Eagle eyed boxrecers may have noticed that Tyson was billed as 6'8.5" last night. He must have shrunk.
6'8¾" :wave:

Guys that size tend to lose an inch every day, and if you want my reckon (and who doesn't), I'd say that Fury's 6'7" at his lowest. Also, as said, them massive shoes have matching heels, and Ron was closer to the camera. It's also possible that Ron's 6'10" on a good day without realising it.

But even accounting for the heels and angle, there's no doubt that Ron's at least a couple of inches taller. Ditto that one security bloke who looks like a huge Mark Williams from The Fast Show. He must be in the 6'9"-6'10" range. Valuev was really 6'10", right? Certainly not 7'.
Last edited by Grilling Machine on 10 Jun 2018, 18:12, edited 2 times in total.
ShadrachSimmo
Cruiserweight
Posts: 4738
Joined: 20 Oct 2010, 05:42

Re: The Mack is Back

Post by ShadrachSimmo »

jamesmcdonnell wrote: 10 Jun 2018, 17:00
ShadrachSimmo wrote: 10 Jun 2018, 15:00
martinmrts wrote: 10 Jun 2018, 11:44 in what way is Tyson Fury a Mack, exactly ?
I know, what the fck is that about?
Well he weighs as much as a truck.
:lol: I thought Macklin was making a comeback when I saw the title. It's all rather silly.
MTroo
Lightweight
Posts: 5
Joined: 10 Jun 2018, 16:24

Re: The Mack is Back

Post by MTroo »

martinmrts wrote: 10 Jun 2018, 11:44 in what way is Tyson Fury a Mack, exactly ?

Image
Stuarty
Middleweight
Posts: 27293
Joined: 20 Aug 2014, 10:28

Re: The Mack is Back

Post by Stuarty »

dirk2686 wrote: 09 Jun 2018, 12:44
mickey1975 wrote: 09 Jun 2018, 12:41 Dirk, did you not say he’d never box again?
You're in your forties for crying out loud. Get a life. :lol:
You two are like an old married couple man :lol:
Syntax Error
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 9025
Joined: 22 Apr 2005, 08:00

Re: The Mack is Back

Post by Syntax Error »

mickey1975 wrote: 09 Jun 2018, 12:41 Dirk, did you not say he’d never box again?
To be fair, what he did on Saturday night wasn't really boxing; it as more akin to Saturday afternoon wrestling on World of Sport in the 1970s, featuring Big Daddy & Mick McManus.


When he actually engages in a proper boxing contest against a live HW, then you can say he's boxed again.
jamamb
Lightweight
Posts: 14329
Joined: 17 Sep 2017, 05:37

Re: The Mack is Back

Post by jamamb »

it was a boxing match, just a weak one, but really theres a lot of crap on most cards, fights vs career losers who are paid to get a prospect a win etc
ILikeBeer
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 10941
Joined: 25 Dec 2004, 07:23

Re: The Mack is Back

Post by ILikeBeer »

Enzo Mac?
Stuarty
Middleweight
Posts: 27293
Joined: 20 Aug 2014, 10:28

Re: The Mack is Back

Post by Stuarty »

Grilling Machine wrote: 10 Jun 2018, 18:08
clopixolacuphase wrote: 10 Jun 2018, 14:16Eagle eyed boxrecers may have noticed that Tyson was billed as 6'8.5" last night. He must have shrunk.
6'8¾" :wave:

Guys that size tend to lose an inch every day, and if you want my reckon (and who doesn't), I'd say that Fury's 6'7" at his lowest. Also, as said, them massive shoes have matching heels, and Ron was closer to the camera. It's also possible that Ron's 6'10" on a good day without realising it.

But even accounting for the heels and angle, there's no doubt that Ron's at least a couple of inches taller. Ditto that one security bloke who looks like a huge Mark Williams from The Fast Show. He must be in the 6'9"-6'10" range. Valuev was really 6'10", right? Certainly not 7'.
That's why I'm divorced :confused:
Post Reply