Is Hughie Fury going to defeat Pulev?

[Loki]

its going to be a horrible fight to watch is all I know.

Agreed.

[gilgamesh]

It's gonna be a dull fight for sure, and I kinda doubt it. Especially with it being in Bulgaria.

[Enlightened-One]

Assuming the judges score the bout in an impartial manner, then Hughie Fury will beat Kubrat Pulev.

The Brit was unfortunate to not get the nod against Joseph Parker and I feel he's learned his lesson from that fight, as he needed to put more power in his shots rather than comprehensively outboxing his opponent.

Fury's most recent outing against Sexton appeared to have confirmed this, but it's easier said than done to achieve the same feat against Pulev.

Running around for 12 rounds and not throwing any punches isn’t comprehensively outboxing anyone. It was close; the Furys have horrible styles and never crowd pleasing plus Parker was a lot more aggressive.

Moreover, Parker threw more jabs, power punches and had the better percentages against Hughie.

And, for the record, I expect Pulev to easily beat Hughie who just isn’t very good and couldn’t break an egg.

Can you please quote the Compubox stats to support your assertions?

[Loki]

Assuming the judges score the bout in an impartial manner, then Hughie Fury will beat Kubrat Pulev.

The Brit was unfortunate to not get the nod against Joseph Parker and I feel he's learned his lesson from that fight, as he needed to put more power in his shots rather than comprehensively outboxing his opponent.

Fury's most recent outing against Sexton appeared to have confirmed this, but it's easier said than done to achieve the same feat against Pulev.

Running around for 12 rounds and not throwing any punches isn’t comprehensively outboxing anyone. It was close; the Furys have horrible styles and never crowd pleasing plus Parker was a lot more aggressive.

Moreover, Parker threw more jabs, power punches and had the better percentages against Hughie.

And, for the record, I expect Pulev to easily beat Hughie who just isn’t very good and couldn’t break an egg.

Can you please quote the Compubox stats to support your assertions?

Not difficult to look up; just a simple Google search. Hughie wore a skirt and was on his bike the whole fight.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... UckMF3QfwW

[Ricky]

Running around for 12 rounds and not throwing any punches isn’t comprehensively outboxing anyone. It was close; the Furys have horrible styles and never crowd pleasing plus Parker was a lot more aggressive.

Moreover, Parker threw more jabs, power punches and had the better percentages against Hughie.

And, for the record, I expect Pulev to easily beat Hughie who just isn’t very good and couldn’t break an egg.

Can you please quote the Compubox stats to support your assertions?

Not difficult to look up; just a simple Google search. Hughie wore a skirt and was on his bike the whole fight.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... UckMF3QfwW

Hughie barely won a minute vs Parker. Fergus is a loser.

[Enlightened-One]

Running around for 12 rounds and not throwing any punches isn’t comprehensively outboxing anyone. It was close; the Furys have horrible styles and never crowd pleasing plus Parker was a lot more aggressive.

Moreover, Parker threw more jabs, power punches and had the better percentages against Hughie.

And, for the record, I expect Pulev to easily beat Hughie who just isn’t very good and couldn’t break an egg.

Can you please quote the Compubox stats to support your assertions?

Not difficult to look up; just a simple Google search. Hughie wore a skirt and was on his bike the whole fight.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... UckMF3QfwW

Your condescending answer fails to explain the reason why the evidence you cite actually undermines your own claims. It's actually incompatible.

My mentor actually taught me to never ask an important question that I didn't already know the answer to.

You won't need me to explain the reason why.

[candyslim]

It could well be a dull fight, but not necessariy. Ok we won't be forcing ourselves not to blink in case we miss the knockout, but it doesn't need to be fireworks for fans - sufficiently interested in boxing to frequent BoxRec - to be entertained, does it?

Granted, Hughie will have to assert himself way more than he did against Parker, but Lazboy describes that as 'the fight of his life'. He's only 23 now and I reckon the fight of his life is some way off in the future. Joseph Parker was WBO champion and was/is a bona fide top 6 contender. Hughie had him expecting the judges were going to rob him.

If nothing else Hughie proved that he is capable of mixing it with the division's near-elite. I don't think that's bad from someone who is in theory many years away from their peak.

[Lennox]

Unless Pulev has dramatically declined he will beat HF easily. Massive gap between the skills.

[Loki]

Can you please quote the Compubox stats to support your assertions?

Not difficult to look up; just a simple Google search. Hughie wore a skirt and was on his bike the whole fight.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... UckMF3QfwW

Your condescending answer fails to explain the reason why the evidence you cite actually undermines your own claims. It's actually incompatible.

My mentor actually taught me to never ask an important question that I didn't already know the answer to.

You won't need me to explain the reason why.

Really. If you think Hughie comprehensively outboxed Parker and taking into account the recognised statistics; never watch boxing again and post tawdry counterfactuals in an attempt to promote your slim knowledge of the sweet science.

Then take a long hard look at oneself in the mirror and repeat; I’m a factious dullard and deserve to get sodomised with a pineapple.

[Loki]

Unless Pulev has dramatically declined he will beat HF easily. Massive gap between the skills.

Agreed. Pulev jab is really good but he lacks power. A lot HW’s of that era are nearing an end e.g Povetkin, Ortiz (who really came late) and Pulev.

[gilgamesh]

Unless Pulev has dramatically declined he will beat HF easily. Massive gap between the skills.

It kinda strikes me as an evenly matched contest at this point, but with it being in Bulgaria I expect Pulev will be getting the benefit of the doubt in close rounds. I hope he beats him decisively though.

[Loki]

Unless Pulev has dramatically declined he will beat HF easily. Massive gap between the skills.

It kinda strikes me as an evenly matched contest at this point, but with it being in Bulgaria I expect Pulev will be getting the benefit of the doubt in close rounds. I hope he beats him decisively though.

Same here; I want the Fury’s to disappear. Hopefully (if it happens) Wilder knocks Tyson into oblivion and Pulev takes Hughie to school.

Let’s see what he has left.

[Enlightened-One]

Not difficult to look up; just a simple Google search. Hughie wore a skirt and was on his bike the whole fight.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... UckMF3QfwW

Your condescending answer fails to explain the reason why the evidence you cite actually undermines your own claims. It's actually incompatible.

My mentor actually taught me to never ask an important question that I didn't already know the answer to.

You won't need me to explain the reason why.

Really. If you think Hughie comprehensively outboxed Parker and taking into account the recognised statistics; never watch boxing again and post tawdry counterfactuals in an attempt to promote your slim knowledge of the sweet science.

Then take a long hard look at oneself in the mirror and repeat; I’m a factious dullard and deserve to get sodomised with a pineapple.

I believe that Hughie Fury did outbox Joseph Parker, but he didn’t put enough power in his shots, which meant that despite his obvious skill levels surpassing those possessed by the Kiwi, he needlessly allowed his opponent to remain competitive, due to not being aggressive enough nor landing enough heavy blows.

I am convinced that the only reason why Fury lost his unbeaten record against Parker was due to poor strategy rather than inability.

It’s your prerogative to attempt to undermine the credibility of my opinion through the use of needlessly brutal insults, but your inability to comprehend the message conveyed by my thoughts actually diminishes the offensiveness of your slurs.

By the way, in case you didn’t already know, a “slur” is an insinuation or allegation about someone that is likely to insult them or damage their reputation.

A tiger, like myself, doesn’t lose sleep over the opinion of the sheep.

[Loki]

Your condescending answer fails to explain the reason why the evidence you cite actually undermines your own claims. It's actually incompatible.

My mentor actually taught me to never ask an important question that I didn't already know the answer to.

You won't need me to explain the reason why.

Really. If you think Hughie comprehensively outboxed Parker and taking into account the recognised statistics; never watch boxing again and post tawdry counterfactuals in an attempt to promote your slim knowledge of the sweet science.

Then take a long hard look at oneself in the mirror and repeat; I’m a factious dullard and deserve to get sodomised with a pineapple.

I believe that Hughie Fury did outbox Joseph Parker, but he didn’t put enough power in his shots, which meant that despite his obvious skill levels surpassing those possessed by the Kiwi, he needlessly allowed his opponent to remain competitive, due to not being aggressive enough nor landing enough heavy blows.

I am convinced that the only reason why Fury lost his unbeaten record against Parker was due to poor strategy rather than inability.

It’s your prerogative to attempt to undermine the credibility of my opinion through the use of needlessly brutal insults, but your inability to comprehend the message conveyed by my thoughts actually diminishes the offensiveness of your insults.

A tiger, like myself, doesn’t lose sleep over the opinion of the sheep.

I’m an Apex Predator with a PHD. You lose this joust Sir.

[tiny_acres]

Your condescending answer fails to explain the reason why the evidence you cite actually undermines your own claims. It's actually incompatible.

My mentor actually taught me to never ask an important question that I didn't already know the answer to.

You won't need me to explain the reason why.

Really. If you think Hughie comprehensively outboxed Parker and taking into account the recognised statistics; never watch boxing again and post tawdry counterfactuals in an attempt to promote your slim knowledge of the sweet science.

Then take a long hard look at oneself in the mirror and repeat; I’m a factious dullard and deserve to get sodomised with a pineapple.

I believe that Hughie Fury did outbox Joseph Parker, but he didn’t put enough power in his shots, which meant that despite his obvious skill levels surpassing those possessed by the Kiwi, he needlessly allowed his opponent to remain competitive, due to not being aggressive enough nor landing enough heavy blows.

I am convinced that the only reason why Fury lost his unbeaten record against Parker was due to poor strategy rather than inability.

It’s your prerogative to attempt to undermine the credibility of my opinion through the use of needlessly brutal insults, but your inability to comprehend the message conveyed by my thoughts actually diminishes the offensiveness of your insults.

A tiger, like myself, doesn’t lose sleep over the opinion of the sheep.

EO we are all entitled to our opinions.
I just for the life of me can't see Fury as the winner in the Parker fight.
He hardly landed a punch and the punches that did land were pitter patty slaps.
But I'll respect your opinion I just don't agree

[Enlightened-One]

Really. If you think Hughie comprehensively outboxed Parker and taking into account the recognised statistics; never watch boxing again and post tawdry counterfactuals in an attempt to promote your slim knowledge of the sweet science.

Then take a long hard look at oneself in the mirror and repeat; I’m a factious dullard and deserve to get sodomised with a pineapple.

I believe that Hughie Fury did outbox Joseph Parker, but he didn’t put enough power in his shots, which meant that despite his obvious skill levels surpassing those possessed by the Kiwi, he needlessly allowed his opponent to remain competitive, due to not being aggressive enough nor landing enough heavy blows.

I am convinced that the only reason why Fury lost his unbeaten record against Parker was due to poor strategy rather than inability.

It’s your prerogative to attempt to undermine the credibility of my opinion through the use of needlessly brutal insults, but your inability to comprehend the message conveyed by my thoughts actually diminishes the offensiveness of your insults.

A tiger, like myself, doesn’t lose sleep over the opinion of the sheep.

I’m an Apex Predator with a PHD. You lose this joust Sir.

Look at the CompuBox stats that undermines the allegations proposed by the person who ignorantly quoted them as supporting his argument, even though they don't. Is this something that you honestly support? Do you need to attend adult literacy classes?

[Enlightened-One]

Really. If you think Hughie comprehensively outboxed Parker and taking into account the recognised statistics; never watch boxing again and post tawdry counterfactuals in an attempt to promote your slim knowledge of the sweet science.

Then take a long hard look at oneself in the mirror and repeat; I’m a factious dullard and deserve to get sodomised with a pineapple.

I believe that Hughie Fury did outbox Joseph Parker, but he didn’t put enough power in his shots, which meant that despite his obvious skill levels surpassing those possessed by the Kiwi, he needlessly allowed his opponent to remain competitive, due to not being aggressive enough nor landing enough heavy blows.

I am convinced that the only reason why Fury lost his unbeaten record against Parker was due to poor strategy rather than inability.

It’s your prerogative to attempt to undermine the credibility of my opinion through the use of needlessly brutal insults, but your inability to comprehend the message conveyed by my thoughts actually diminishes the offensiveness of your insults.

A tiger, like myself, doesn’t lose sleep over the opinion of the sheep.

EO we are all entitled to our opinions.
I just for the life of me can't see Fury as the winner in the Parker fight.
He hardly landed a punch and the punches that did land were pitter patty slaps.
But I'll respect your opinion I just don't agree

You might not realise this, but despite our frequent disagreements, I genuinely respect your opinion. I really do. The reason being, is you come across as being a die-hard passionate fan of the sport of boxing for decades.

That being said, the outcome of the Parker-Fury bout was almost certainly moderately controversial in nature. I also believe that Hughie could have won that fight with ease if he adopted the correct strategy. The Brit made a mistake by fighting too negatively, but he lost his bout against Parker by the smallest of margins.

I hope that my opinion of this fight doesn’t frustrate you too much, since that’s not my intention.

[Loki]

I believe that Hughie Fury did outbox Joseph Parker, but he didn’t put enough power in his shots, which meant that despite his obvious skill levels surpassing those possessed by the Kiwi, he needlessly allowed his opponent to remain competitive, due to not being aggressive enough nor landing enough heavy blows.

I am convinced that the only reason why Fury lost his unbeaten record against Parker was due to poor strategy rather than inability.

It’s your prerogative to attempt to undermine the credibility of my opinion through the use of needlessly brutal insults, but your inability to comprehend the message conveyed by my thoughts actually diminishes the offensiveness of your insults.

A tiger, like myself, doesn’t lose sleep over the opinion of the sheep.

I’m an Apex Predator with a PHD. You lose this joust Sir.

Look at the CompuBox stats that undermines the allegations proposed by the person who ignorantly quoted them as supporting his argument, even though they don't. Is this something that you honestly support? Do you need to attend adult literacy classes?

Look fool; apart from one jab landed in favour of Hughie (the definition of comprehensively outboxing someone), Parker dominated the entire statistics. What is your point?

[tiny_acres]

I believe that Hughie Fury did outbox Joseph Parker, but he didn’t put enough power in his shots, which meant that despite his obvious skill levels surpassing those possessed by the Kiwi, he needlessly allowed his opponent to remain competitive, due to not being aggressive enough nor landing enough heavy blows.

I am convinced that the only reason why Fury lost his unbeaten record against Parker was due to poor strategy rather than inability.

It’s your prerogative to attempt to undermine the credibility of my opinion through the use of needlessly brutal insults, but your inability to comprehend the message conveyed by my thoughts actually diminishes the offensiveness of your insults.

A tiger, like myself, doesn’t lose sleep over the opinion of the sheep.

EO we are all entitled to our opinions.
I just for the life of me can't see Fury as the winner in the Parker fight.
He hardly landed a punch and the punches that did land were pitter patty slaps.
But I'll respect your opinion I just don't agree

You might not realise this, but despite our frequent disagreements, I genuinely respect your opinion. I really do. The reason being, is you come across as being a die-hard passionate fan of the sport of boxing for decades.

That being said, the outcome of the Parker-Fury bout was almost certainly moderately controversial in nature. I also believe that Hughie could have won that fight with ease if he adopted the correct strategy. The Brit made a mistake by fighting too negatively, but he lost his bout against Parker by the smallest of margins.

I hope that my opinion of this fight doesn’t frustrate you too much, since that’s not my intention.

No frustration at all.. And on the same lines I do respect that you stick to your guns no matter how much others may disagree. You do bring up some valid points that make you think on topics.
And though we will never see eye to eye on numerous topics. I enjoy a civil debate with you from time to time.


Speaking as the Texan I am.... You are not as much a dick as I've claimed in the past

[brilo33]

fury will win, i believe he will go on to be a better boxer then he is now

[KiwiRider]

[believe that Hughie Fury did outbox Joseph Parker, but he didn’t put enough power in his shots, which meant that despite his obvious skill levels surpassing those possessed by the Kiwi, he needlessly allowed his opponent to remain competitive, due to not being aggressive enough nor landing enough heavy blows.

I am convinced that the only reason why Fury lost his unbeaten record against Parker was due to poor strategy rather than inability.

It’s your prerogative to attempt to undermine the credibility of my opinion through the use of needlessly brutal insults, but your inability to comprehend the message conveyed by my thoughts actually diminishes the offensiveness of your slurs.

By the way, in case you didn’t already know, a “slur” is an insinuation or allegation about someone that is likely to insult them or damage their reputation.

A tiger, like myself, doesn’t lose sleep over the opinion of the sheep.

Hi EO
Sheep lover here
On first watch I thought the Parker Fury fight was a draw, second and third watch and I was convinced the judges got it right. You can't score rounds for a negative display like Hughie put on that night. Parker brought the fight to him for 12 rounds.
Hughie was the better boxer on the night, but he didn't do enough to show he was the next champion. He has learned from it, and I do expect him to beat Pulev.
But he did not beat Parker that night.

[Oiky]

He can but he's got to make sure he doesn't get f*cked up by the cards he'll be getting no gifts out there

[candyslim]

[believe that Hughie Fury did outbox Joseph Parker, but he didn’t put enough power in his shots, which meant that despite his obvious skill levels surpassing those possessed by the Kiwi, he needlessly allowed his opponent to remain competitive, due to not being aggressive enough nor landing enough heavy blows.

I am convinced that the only reason why Fury lost his unbeaten record against Parker was due to poor strategy rather than inability.

It’s your prerogative to attempt to undermine the credibility of my opinion through the use of needlessly brutal insults, but your inability to comprehend the message conveyed by my thoughts actually diminishes the offensiveness of your slurs.

By the way, in case you didn’t already know, a “slur” is an insinuation or allegation about someone that is likely to insult them or damage their reputation.

A tiger, like myself, doesn’t lose sleep over the opinion of the sheep.

Hi EO
Sheep lover here
On first watch I thought the Parker Fury fight was a draw, second and third watch and I was convinced the judges got it right. You can't score rounds for a negative display like Hughie put on that night. Parker brought the fight to him for 12 rounds.
Hughie was the better boxer on the night, but he didn't do enough to show he was the next champion. He has learned from it, and I do expect him to beat Pulev.
But he did not beat Parker that night.

Hughie ran like a thief against Parker and did not deserve the decision, however ...

If you reduce it to boxing's core element 'the art of hitting without being hit' then by that yardstick Hughie wiped the floor with him.

You only had to look at Parker and his corner while awaiting the scores, to realize they were convinced they were about to get robbed. I don't mean they thought Parker lost the fight, but dodgy decisions are hardly unknown in the UK and the judges would have had some justification in scoring for Fury, even though I'm very glad they didn't.

For me as an Englishman it was enough that Hughie had shown he could compete at world level and that hopefully lessons had been learned that would make him easier on the eyes in future fights.

Frankly I'm very surprised that many posters on here whom I consider to be pretty knowledgeable about boxing, seem totally oblivious to what I regard as his obvious potential, and can only see a powder-puff, track athlete destined to stink out any auditorium he boxes at

[bigjack]

Think he'll get stiffed on the cards.

x2

[London Boy]

Sure I’m in the minority here, but I think this is a great match up. Fair play to both for taking it. If Fury does the business that puts right up there in the division and if he keeps busy in the first half of the fight I think he’ll have enough to get the nod.