Tyson Fury would have been eaten for dinner in my era, claims Frank Bruno

[Grilling Machine]

Green was more aggressive than Fury and had serious whiskers, and his height was as much hindrance as help.

Taller again, I could see Fury having all kinds of trouble against Tyson's movement and speed without underhooks. Green looked like he was grabbing an eel at times, and took some heavy whacks for his failed efforts to contain Tyson's movement.

I think Fury might've been able to take most of Tyson's punches on his arms and gloves, avoiding much of a beating, but I see that as his best-case scenario loss. Tyson's short arms wouldn't have had much joy against Fury in journeyman mode.

He could also have nicked some points on the outside, but he wouldn't have won being that negative at the time, and I couldn't see him lasting 12 had he not been.

[THEBUTCH]

Mike's speed was off the charts.

[mickey1975]

What if he just stuck it on him like Buster?

[coneye]

What if he just stuck it on him like Buster?

Depends which Tyson were talking about , the Tyson in his prime or the Tyson after it the money fame went to his head ,, the prime Tyson would of slipped and ko'd Fury inside a couple of rnds ,,, diffent between putting it on a guy like Wilder who had no defense , a lack of skills and really just a big right hand ,,, than an elusive masterpeice like an early Tyson , with ko power in every shot ,

[mickey1975]

What if he just stuck it on him like Buster?

Depends which Tyson were talking about , the Tyson in his prime or the Tyson after it the money fame went to his head ,, the prime Tyson would of slipped and ko'd Fury inside a couple of rnds ,,, diffent between putting it on a guy like Wilder who had no defense , a lack of skills and really just a big right hand ,,, than an elusive masterpeice like an early Tyson , with ko power in every shot ,

Well there we have it. Ribalta and Tillis went the distance. Fury is crap, obviously. Even Bruno went further in both fights, one where he was terrified. But no, it would have been over within two rounds.

[coneye]

What if he just stuck it on him like Buster?

Depends which Tyson were talking about , the Tyson in his prime or the Tyson after it the money fame went to his head ,, the prime Tyson would of slipped and ko'd Fury inside a couple of rnds ,,, diffent between putting it on a guy like Wilder who had no defense , a lack of skills and really just a big right hand ,,, than an elusive masterpeice like an early Tyson , with ko power in every shot ,

Well there we have it. Ribalta and Tillis went the distance. Fury is crap, obviously. Even Bruno went further in both fights, one where he was terrified. But no, it would have been over within two rounds.

Sorry to inform you Mick ,, But Fury is the best of a bad bunch , with two notable opponents under his belt ,, one of which was an aging Klitchko in the most boring fight of that decade the other was Wilder probably the most overrated champ of all time , with close too if not the worst record of any previous champ ,,, After all Fury is so good , he's not even sure about fighting Whyte ,,
Only chance Fury would off had against a PRIME Mike Tyson , the undeafeted Mike Tyson , would off been if it was in Britain with a British ref who let him hold , and wrestle , including getting him in a figure four leg lock , before he disqualified Mike for throwing punches ,, .
Sorry Tyson Fury , is the best of a bad era , not an all time best ,,, If Cunningham could put him on his arse , what do you think would off happenned with a prime Mike Tyson landing a clean shot ,, and he would off landed plenty

[mickey1975]

He got up. He's undefeated. Mike never won a dogfight. When was his prime? The Spinks win? Because in the fight after Frank Bruno wobbled him and took him five. A light heavyweight and Bruno? Great era? Better than Wlad and Wilder?

[mickey1975]

And if you remember correctly, Mike's fight with Bonecrusher wasn't well received at all. It was terrible until Smith opened up in the last 30 seconds. People were expecting to see the new superstar.

[tonyevs]

I understand that past champions develop an almost mythical reputation a few years after they retire which they may not have had during their career; Lennox Lewis and Joe Calzaghe being classic examples.

However there is YouTube at our finger tips now to rewatch these guys to remind ourselves if they really were all that.

I think it's blatantly clear to everyone that Mick is Tyson Fury's coghaugen11.
But It would be interesting if he could let us know what actual fight that Tyson Fury demonstrated the great skills he apparently has/had?

[mickey1975]

I understand that past champions develop an almost mythical reputation a few years after they retire which they may not have had during their career; Lennox Lewis and Joe Calzaghe being classic examples.

However there is YouTube at our finger tips now to rewatch these guys to remind ourselves if they really were all that.

I think it's blatantly clear to everyone that Mick is Tyson Fury's coghaugen11.
But It would be interesting if he could let us know what actual fight that Tyson Fury demonstrated the great skills he apparently has/had?

So then you lot are Mike's Coghaugen?
Try Wlad, Wilder 2, Del 2 for three different styles. Two against reigning champions.

[Fray Bentos]

Apart from Mike Tyson and maybe an in-form Buster Douglas and Tony Tucker and one or two others, Tyson Fury would have beaten every single one of them. Frank Bruno would have struggled in this era - there are a lot more decent heavyweights now than there were then - in fact, back then - people were lamenting about how piss poor the heavyweight division was and Tony Tubbs vs Tim Witherspoon was something of a low point if I remember rightly. Bruno fought many many poor opponents and even 38 year Joe Bugner was seen as a step up at the time.

If I remember rightly, they were talented enough but most of them were off their heads on coke and managed by Don King. Tyson Fury would have done amazing in that era post-Holmes.

Frank Bruno is one fighter who boxing has done a great service to. He was heavily protected, massively loved and made a lot of money... he has nothing to remonstrate with anyone about his career - no-one threw him to the wolves.

[dan28uk]

definitely against wlad and del 2 fight

[HomicideHenry]

As much as I like Frank Bruno he's talking out of his ass a little bit. With the exception of Larry Holmes and Mike Tyson in the '80s everybody else in the heavyweight division could have been beaten by the likes of Tyson Fury.

For some reason in the '80s most of the heavyweights were inconsistent and often fell off the rails due to drugs or alcohol abuse. When they were good they were damn good but when they were bad they were just horrible.

Didn't Tyson Fury drop out 2 years by going off the rails with drink and drugs?

It's too early to be saying Fury would beat all these guys of yesteryear. Perception of a fighter changes so much when they lose, and how they lose. A 40 year old Wlad who wouldn't fight and a clueless Deontay who couldn't fight don't make you a lock to beat everyone in history. Or is it Otto Wallin or Steve Cunningham that's making you rate him so highly?

Unlike all those others Fury actually left the division rather than an embarrass himself in the ring. He regrouped and came back arguably a stronger force than he was the first time around.

And I rate him so highly not so much on who he defeated exactly, although that does play a part of it of course, but rather on his potentiality. His combination of size, athleticism, ring IQ, heart & toughness, recuperating powers, boxing ability, and having damn good speed for his size overall makes him a nightmare for anyone in heavyweight boxing history.

He would be problematic and awkward for anybody regardless of their all time rating. As for downplaying his achievements, I kind of wonder what it would take for most people to recognize how good of a heavyweight he actually is.

Every time he wins his opponents are either dismissed or there are excuses made. I can imagine that if he defeated Usyk the cry would be that Usyk was just too small, when people for months have been bragging that he is just as good or better than Holyfield. Or if he defeated Whyte, Ruiz, Joyce, etc--- people would say that this era is just horrible all the way around. Or if he defeated Joshua, people would say so what Joshua has already lost twice.

Or worse if he lost to Usyk, people would be bragging saying, "I told you so he's nothing but a hype job," etc--- as if to ignore the fact that he has been basically the number one heavyweight for half a dozen years, and that despite never going to the Olympics he's defeated two Olympic medalists, etc.

Mind you, anyone can be beaten. Fury's no exception. But I tend to believe that if he loses it will be because of a lack of self-discipline and complacency rather than someone actually being better than he is. Kind of like how Lennox Lewis should have never lost to McCall and Rahman.

[Autobarn]

Mike Tyson had seamless offence and defence. However, it wasn’t a very sustainable style and whatever excuses we want to make, short heavies don’t maintain great form for long. Certainly, lethal when firing on all cylinders - and he blitzed some very talented guys (Thomas, Tucker) & still crafty, once great veterans (Spinks, Holmes). And he could win a bruising fight (Ruddock). But once the reflexes slip, once the weight comes on, the knees and once the shoulders gain some wear and tear… defeat comes closer.

Saw YouTube clips of his amateur fights and realised for the first time he seemed to have matured physically very early. He was never going to last long, especially if every fight is an all out attack, more often than not vs someone considerably bigger. Tyson isn’t reliable talking about himself but admitted to having some kind of lung issues, requiring him to get fights over with early (a documentary by James Toback).

***


Bowe also seems to get a pass for his shortcomings. Certainly a wonderful repertoire of punches inside. Lovely the way he turned shots over, shifted balance - very relaxed and natural attacking style. But a bit dopey and not quite assertive enough. A sleepy look about him with such little urgency (outside of the Gonzalez & Donald fights). Holyfield really did him a great favour by sitting inside in their epic first fight. That’s what Bowe needed him to do… also, strangely, I feel that Evander broke his heart a bit, by marching forward, pushing him back & forcing him to fight 3 minutes… Bowe never had the discipline, desire, whatever, to maintain his shape. He wasn’t an athlete. & only seemed to have benefited dedicated camps for Holyfield 1 & Golota 2. Many were worried that he’d be too dehydrated for EvanDer 1 because of actually taking excess weight off. Basically Bowe’s two big, very exciting rivalries tell the whole story.

Just IMO but we saw exactly what Tyson & Bowe had, and we saw what they don’t have.

[mickey1975]

He didn't blitz Tucker and Thomas had been on the crack for years!

[cormack]

well not by you Frank

[tonyevs]

I understand that past champions develop an almost mythical reputation a few years after they retire which they may not have had during their career; Lennox Lewis and Joe Calzaghe being classic examples.

However there is YouTube at our finger tips now to rewatch these guys to remind ourselves if they really were all that.

I think it's blatantly clear to everyone that Mick is Tyson Fury's coghaugen11.
But It would be interesting if he could let us know what actual fight that Tyson Fury demonstrated the great skills he apparently has/had?

So then you lot are Mike's Coghaugen?
Try Wlad, Wilder 2, Del 2 for three different styles. Two against reigning champions.

Yep - and that proves the point.
Wlad - He beat a then ancient Wlad in the least impressive fashion than any of the others who had beaten him.
Wilder - enough has been said about Wilder`s ability; but as surprising it was to see Fury gtt rid of Wilder that night was .. skill wise he was still piss poor for someone regarded as the best heavyweight today.
Chisora - I think `gatekeeper` really does describes him best; so difficult to give too much kudos when he has been beaten more impressively by others.

Thats my last word on this. Mick is simply blinded by bias.

[mickey1975]

I'll enlighten you. He actually beat Del when he was unbeaten but I chose the second fight because he did it southpaw. I said Wlad because he did it on the back foot. He was undefeated for 10 years at the time.... I said Wilder 2 because he went after the puncher and beat him up. An undefeated heavyweight champion. When nobody said he could. What more styles do you want from him?

[polecateddy]

I'll enlighten you. He actually beat Del when he was unbeaten but I chose the second fight because he did it southpaw. I said Wlad because he did it on the back foot. He was undefeated for 10 years at the time.... I said Wilder 2 because he went after the puncher and beat him up. An undefeated heavyweight champion. When nobody said he could. What more styles do you want from him?

His career obviously needs a bit more flesh on the bones. Unless Wilder can come back and show something special he’s going down as one of the worst heavyweight champions in history sadly. The Wlad win was definitely excellent but it was at a changing of the guard moment anyway. If he hadn’t lost to Fury it would have likely been someone else soon enough. Fury needs to show he can beat the current top contenders.

[HomicideHenry]

I don't know where you get that Wilder was one of the worst champions of history considering most alphabet champions couldn't even successfully defend the title once. Hell most lineal champions were not able to defend the title as many times as Wilder defended the WBC belt.

I'm not saying that Wilder was a great boxer or anything like that but when you really look at the entire history of the heavyweight division he certainly did more than guys like Coetzee, Dokes, Page, Thomas, Witherspoon, Maskaev, Chagaev, Ibragimov, etc.

[Old bones Ian]

Frank is more than entitled to have his opinion, and Fury will be saying the same in 20/30 years.

[margaret thatcher]

wilder wasnt one of the worst, hed beat plenty other belt holders, but his record is hugely padded. like 43 wins or whatever, and bermane stiverne and dom breazeale are among the best 3 he's beaten. if you actually look at his title wins its really not all that

josh beatdown breazeale after 2 years pro and now its barely a top 10 win for him. wilder did it after 11 years pro and it was a top 3 win for him and ppl actually hyped it

ppl regard charles martin as a total joke, yet he easily ko'd wilder challenger gerry washington

[gilgamesh]

Fury may well have been beaten by some from Bruno's era, but Bruno wouldn't be the guy that was doing it so he really don't need to be talking sh*t here.

[margaret thatcher]

wilder lost every round to luiz ortiz in the rematch before getting the ko, and somehow ppl thought he'd massively improved his boxing , that was a really bizarre one to me

no wonder they were surprised when fury whooped his arse in the rematch

[margaret thatcher]

it happens every era, the older generations say the current guys couldnt do sheet. probably helps frank live with the fact that fury accomplished more than him