Fury-Usyk. Who will you be rooting for?

[Nightmare Roy]

If we look at the better known `major challengers' since Fury came back after his doping ban in 2018 we see he faced only one `major challenger` ... whyte whilst mandatory was seriously shop worn as Povetkin demonstrated.


Wilder - Yep
Whyte - Yep

Joshua - Nope
Ruiz - Nope
Ortiz - Nope
Parker - Nope
Povetkin - Nope
Pulev - Nope
Joyce - Nope
Zhang - Nope
Hrgovic - Nope
Usyk - Nope

They all ducked Fury.

everyone ducks fury

according to anyone whos surname is fury

Only his old pal Del Boy and Non boxers have the courage to face the GOAT!

[skanksta]

Fury’s resume is indeed shite - and Iron Mike WAS a force of nature - but Fury beats him all day long.
Just. Too. Big.

[margaret thatcher]

Fury’s resume is indeed shite - and Iron Mike WAS a force of nature - but Fury beats him all day long.
Just. Too. Big.

did you say fury beats everyone ever, or am i thinking of another poster

[jamesmcdonnell]

Fury’s resume is indeed shite - and Iron Mike WAS a force of nature - but Fury beats him all day long.
Just. Too. Big.

Tyson did pretty well against bigger fighters.

Given that Fury was dumped hard on his arse by Steve Cunningham, and was decked several times by wilder, are you seriously saying you cannot see Mike flattening him.

A totally shot and unmotivated Tyson lasted 8 rounds with a prime lewis, who was better than Fury in everything except maybe mobility.

[Fray Bentos]

Fury’s resume is indeed shite - and Iron Mike WAS a force of nature - but Fury beats him all day long.
Just. Too. Big.

Tyson did pretty well against bigger fighters.

Given that Fury was dumped hard on his arse by Steve Cunningham, and was decked several times by wilder, are you seriously saying you cannot see Mike flattening him.

A totally shot and unmotivated Tyson lasted 8 rounds with a prime lewis, who was better than Fury in everything except maybe mobility.

I agree, I also agree with Skanks view of size being a factor and an advantage but Iron Mike was an amazing body puncher - for an heavyweight, he was able to fire rapid body shots and there would have been a lot of body to go for on Tyson Fury and that is where Fury being so big would have been at a great disadvantage - you see Iron Mike dismantle Biggs and Tubbs with his body shots - Iron Mike would have got rid of Tyson Fury by the halfway point pretty convincingly.

[polecateddy]

Fighters who have been decked 7 times already would probably have gone over in a round against Mike Tyson. End of!

[Ezzard]

"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect."

Mark Twain

[jamesmcdonnell]

Fury’s resume is indeed shite - and Iron Mike WAS a force of nature - but Fury beats him all day long.
Just. Too. Big.

Tyson did pretty well against bigger fighters.

Given that Fury was dumped hard on his arse by Steve Cunningham, and was decked several times by wilder, are you seriously saying you cannot see Mike flattening him.

A totally shot and unmotivated Tyson lasted 8 rounds with a prime lewis, who was better than Fury in everything except maybe mobility.

I agree, I also agree with Skanks view of size being a factor and an advantage but Iron Mike was an amazing body puncher - for an heavyweight, he was able to fire rapid body shots and there would have been a lot of body to go for on Tyson Fury and that is where Fury being so big would have been at a great disadvantage - you see Iron Mike dismantle Biggs and Tubbs with his body shots - Iron Mike would have got rid of Tyson Fury by the halfway point pretty convincingly.

The other factor is speed and mobility - Fury looks quick, partly because a lot of the current crop, are big lumbering apeths, with poor fitness, and way too much muscle packed on, who simply cannot fight at a lick.,


Tyson would have made Fury look like a statue with his footwork, he would have found himself blind sided, and no way would he have been able to control him with that pawing jab. Mike would have gotten under and beyond the reach in his prime, and would have been landing massive shots.

Tyson had underrated fundamentals in his prime, his jab was actually one of his best weapons, he'd use his feet to get under and around the lead hand, throw a jab as he got into midrange, and then follow with body shots and uppercuts as he closed distance.

The myth of the unbeatable Fury has been somewhat exploded, by how fcking useless he looked against Ngannou, who had little more than a few basics, strength and power. Mike was on another level entirely.

I don't rate Tyson that high as an ATG as his prime was quite brief, but that prime was something to behold. Douglas fought the fight of his life to beat even a dispirited version of Mike and Mike almost retrieved matters with a single shot.

Earlier in his career, people were talking about Joshua being too big and too good for the fighters of yesteryear, then a fat tub of lard battered the living shite out of him. Size is an asset, but it also has it's drawbacks too.

[margaret thatcher]

"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect."

Mark Twain

Ya so you should be an edgelord and always go against the majority to be cool

[jamesmcdonnell]

"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect."

Mark Twain

Ya so you should be an edgelord and always go against the majority to be cool

Holding contrary viewpoints doesn't make you a visionary.

What Twain was suggesting was that you reflect on whether you believe something to be so, just because others do, IMHO.

[skanksta]

Fury’s resume is indeed shite - and Iron Mike WAS a force of nature - but Fury beats him all day long.
Just. Too. Big.

did you say fury beats everyone ever, or am i thinking of another poster

Shome mistake Shirley !
A peak Fury would do well against a lot of the old time greats, (size) but, like..,
"No of course not".

[skanksta]

Fury’s resume is indeed shite - and Iron Mike WAS a force of nature - but Fury beats him all day long.
Just. Too. Big.

Tyson did pretty well against bigger fighters.

Given that Fury was dumped hard on his arse by Steve Cunningham, and was decked several times by wilder, are you seriously saying you cannot see Mike flattening him.

A totally shot and unmotivated Tyson lasted 8 rounds with a prime lewis, who was better than Fury in everything except maybe mobility.

Tyson didn't do well against bigger fighters - he KO'd everyone in his pomp except...
,Bonecrusher 6'4 and TNT Tucker 6'5.
And he took 10 rounds to KO Jose Ribalta 6'5.

Not the only factor obviously, but I can even remember them saying he struggled with length and size a bit at the time.
Of course he did - he was a 5'`10 cruiserweight by modern standards.

[skanksta]

Although, he probably couldn't afford any Steve Cunningham mistakes on the night !

[polecateddy]

I’m not saying Mike Tyson beats everyone that came after him. Obviously there’s serious issues with Holyfield (although Tyson - Holyfield 1, when Tyson is past his obvious peak, is for the most part very close), Bowe and Lewis. Tellingly in terms of the height disadvantage, reports often point out that Tyson had too much skill for Tucker, who is generally regarded as a skilful 6 foot 5 heavyweight. Who in turn was past it against Lewis and VERY past it against Hide. Having watched Tyson Fury’s awful last fight, I’d confidently predict Mike Tyson does a number on Tyson Fury. I think Mike literally just walks through him because in relative terms Morecambe Fury has no power.

[Ezzard]

"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect."

Mark Twain

Ya so you should be an edgelord and always go against the majority to be cool

Holding contrary viewpoints doesn't make you a visionary.

What Twain was suggesting was that you reflect on whether you believe something to be so, just because others do, IMHO.

[jamesmcdonnell]

Fury’s resume is indeed shite - and Iron Mike WAS a force of nature - but Fury beats him all day long.
Just. Too. Big.

Tyson did pretty well against bigger fighters.

Given that Fury was dumped hard on his arse by Steve Cunningham, and was decked several times by wilder, are you seriously saying you cannot see Mike flattening him.

A totally shot and unmotivated Tyson lasted 8 rounds with a prime lewis, who was better than Fury in everything except maybe mobility.

Tyson didn't do well against bigger fighters - he KO'd everyone in his pomp except...
,Bonecrusher 6'4 and TNT Tucker 6'5.
And he took 10 rounds to KO Jose Ribalta 6'5.

Not the only factor obviously, but I can even remember them saying he struggled with length and size a bit at the time.
Of course he did - he was a 5'`10 cruiserweight by modern standards.

Tyson won almost every single round against all of those men.

Bonecrusher Smith only survived, because he held on like a baby flying squirrel for the entire fight! - he made Henry Akinwande look like Henry Armstrong. He should have been disqualified in that fight, as he barely threw a single punch after round 1. He was so negative, he actually created antimatter in the ring that night

Doing well doesn't mean you have to KO the fighter, Tyson never came close to losing to any of those men.


,

[jamesmcdonnell]

I’m not saying Mike Tyson beats everyone that came after him. Obviously there’s serious issues with Holyfield (although Tyson - Holyfield 1, when Tyson is past his obvious peak, is for the most part very close), Bowe and Lewis. Tellingly in terms of the height disadvantage, reports often point out that Tyson had too much skill for Tucker, who is generally regarded as a skilful 6 foot 5 heavyweight. Who in turn was past it against Lewis and VERY past it against Hide. Having watched Tyson Fury’s awful last fight, I’d confidently predict Mike Tyson does a number on Tyson Fury. I think Mike literally just walks through him because in relative terms Morecambe Fury has no power.

I'm willing to say, that even at this stage, Fury is capable of a better performance than that, but suspect he's physically in decline, it's possible the fights with Wilder took something out of him, I've seen it before where a fighter's punch resistance goes after a brutal fight. Danny Williams was never the same after the shellacking he took from Mike Tyson, his fight against Klitchsko, I'm surprised he wasn't counted out when they touched gloves, everything that landed had him in desperate trouble.

However, Tyson even in his losing effort against ATG Holyfield in their first fight, most certainly had his moments, and hit him with a tonne of shots - Holyfield was one of the toughest men I've ever seen in the ring, his only stoppage lossses anywhere even close to his prime, were against Bowe and Toney, although he was already past his best against Bowe, and well over the hill against Toney.

Tyson was VERY durable, in all his stoppage losses, he was hit with massive unanswererd salvos of punches, I seem to recollect that Danny Williams landed 27 unanswered flush shots before he stopped him, Douglas hit him with a tonne of shots, as did Holyfield, and even Lewis past Tyson's prime when he was a walking shell of himself.

Fury's not really a vaunted puncher, and it was only really against a totally spent and frankly shite Wilder, and a fat paycheck grabbing Whyte he looked anything like a puncher.

[Redback Rasta]

No. Fury is the boss. He has a legally binding agreement to fight Usyk on the 23rd. FURY, not his promoters, chose not to fight.

If there was a legally binding agreement in place why hasn't anybody involved in the contract enforced it? Tried to claim damages? Or even mentioned it in the media for that matter?

I'll tell you why. Because the agreement for December 23rd was dependent on how Fury came through the Ngannou fight.

Who said it was?

I'll answer that for you as well. Arum and Warren made it abundantly clear, numerous times and publicly before Fury-Ngannou, that the December 23rd date was dependent on how Fury came through the Ngannou fight.

You can pretend otherwise but you'll need to lie :OhYes:

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Arum and Warren are telling the truth? Stop being silly.

"If there was a legally binding agreement in place"??? "

"Who said it was?"

Tyson Fury said there was.

So make your mind up mickey, is Fury lying? or Are Bob and Fwank lying?

If the contract was binding for December 23rd, there would have been repercussions when that date was not met :OhYes:

Usyk even said to Fury after the night 'you need a rest after that.'

[jwfg]

If there was a legally binding agreement in place why hasn't anybody involved in the contract enforced it? Tried to claim damages? Or even mentioned it in the media for that matter?

I'll tell you why. Because the agreement for December 23rd was dependent on how Fury came through the Ngannou fight.

Who said it was?

I'll answer that for you as well. Arum and Warren made it abundantly clear, numerous times and publicly before Fury-Ngannou, that the December 23rd date was dependent on how Fury came through the Ngannou fight.

You can pretend otherwise but you'll need to lie

Arum and Warren are telling the truth? Stop being silly.

"If there was a legally binding agreement in place"??? "

"Who said it was?"

Tyson Fury said there was.

So make your mind up mickey, is Fury lying? or Are Bob and Fwank lying?

If the contract was binding for December 23rd, there would have been repercussions when that date was not met

Usyk even said to Fury after the night 'you need a rest after that.'

So, who was lying. Fury or Fwank? It's a simple question.

[si7dog7]

If there was a legally binding agreement in place why hasn't anybody involved in the contract enforced it? Tried to claim damages? Or even mentioned it in the media for that matter?

I'll tell you why. Because the agreement for December 23rd was dependent on how Fury came through the Ngannou fight.

Who said it was?

I'll answer that for you as well. Arum and Warren made it abundantly clear, numerous times and publicly before Fury-Ngannou, that the December 23rd date was dependent on how Fury came through the Ngannou fight.

You can pretend otherwise but you'll need to lie

Arum and Warren are telling the truth? Stop being silly.

"If there was a legally binding agreement in place"??? "

"Who said it was?"

Tyson Fury said there was.

So make your mind up mickey, is Fury lying? or Are Bob and Fwank lying?

If the contract was binding for December 23rd, there would have been repercussions when that date was not met

Usyk even said to Fury after the night 'you need a rest after that.'

Think he might have been having a bubble Mickey?
Coz that performance was shocking.
Butterbean Eric would have done better.

[Redback Rasta]

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Arum and Warren are telling the truth? Stop being silly.

"If there was a legally binding agreement in place"??? "

"Who said it was?"

Tyson Fury said there was.

So make your mind up mickey, is Fury lying? or Are Bob and Fwank lying?

If the contract was binding for December 23rd, there would have been repercussions when that date was not met :OhYes:

Usyk even said to Fury after the night 'you need a rest after that.'

Think he might have been having a bubble Mickey?
Coz that performance was shocking.
Butterbean Eric would have done better.

If the contract was binding for December 23rd, there would have been repercussions when that date was not met. Fact :OhYes:

A fact you can't explain away :clap:

[jwfg]

If the contract was binding for December 23rd, there would have been repercussions when that date was not met. Fact

That, sir, is not a fact. It is an assumption.

[Redback Rasta]

If the contract was binding for December 23rd, there would have been repercussions when that date was not met. Fact

That, sir, is not a fact. It is an assumption.

You are, first assuming the contract was binding for December 23rd when the promoters had made it quite plain it wasn't and second, assuming there were repercussions, when there are no signs whatsoever that is the case :OhYes:

You just lie and make stuff up and are not worth wasting any more time on :doh:

[jwfg]

If the contract was binding for December 23rd, there would have been repercussions when that date was not met. Fact

That, sir, is not a fact. It is an assumption.

You are, first assuming the contract was binding for December 23rd when the promoters had made it quite plain it wasn't and second, assuming there were repercussions, when there are no signs whatsoever that is the case

You just lie and make stuff up and are not worth wasting any more time on

I'm not assuming anything. You are, silly billy. Have you ever read a police report? It's filled with facts and has zero assumptions in it, ZERO. Now you can say, "there would have been repercussions ." all you like, but that is you making an assumption, not stating a fact.

Do you now understand the difference between a fact and an assumption?

[BigDoofus]

If the contract was binding for December 23rd, there would have been repercussions when that date was not met. Fact

That, sir, is not a fact. It is an assumption.

You are, first assuming the contract was binding for December 23rd when the promoters had made it quite plain it wasn't and second, assuming there were repercussions, when there are no signs whatsoever that is the case

You just lie and make stuff up and are not worth wasting any more time on

Ignore the weirdo.
A couple of months ago he was claiming on here that Fury had just failed a test.
He’s that obsessed he can’t help himself.