BoxRec

punchoutsb wrote: ↑01 Sep 2019, 11:35

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑01 Sep 2019, 01:08
Povetkin isn’t ten times better than Fury.

You were WRONG but no one can force you to admit it.

I'm curious...how many times better is he?

Ilya Muromets wrote: ↑01 Sep 2019, 11:54

punchoutsb wrote: ↑01 Sep 2019, 11:35

I'm curious...how many times better is he?

5.96 times better, but at his peak he was 13.875 times better, so really the guy wasn't exaggerating that much when he rounded it out to 10.

oogiebe wrote: ↑01 Sep 2019, 11:55

Ilya Muromets wrote: ↑01 Sep 2019, 11:54



5.96 times better, but at his peak he was 13.875 times better, so really the guy wasn't exaggerating that much when he rounded it out to 10.

Thank you Mr. Spock. LOL!

Ilya Muromets wrote: ↑01 Sep 2019, 11:54

punchoutsb wrote: ↑01 Sep 2019, 11:35

I'm curious...how many times better is he?

5.96 times better, but at his peak he was 13.875 times better, so really the guy wasn't exaggerating that much when he rounded it out to 10.

jujigatame wrote: ↑01 Sep 2019, 12:23 Hughie is young and could still get to the top of the division, but he has a lot of work to do. He should also probably show he can beat a B-lister before he gets another big fight against a top 10 guy. Which is a category he is now 0-3 against.

margaret thatcher wrote: ↑01 Sep 2019, 13:08 As it stands, I am giving the 'but he's still very young' argument no credit, because he's shown absolutely no improvement or change in his approach when he fights good opposition. It's the exact same thing every time and it's been 3 losses now. I think we probably see him burnt out earlier too.

Some guys get set in their ways early and never really change it up.

margaret thatcher wrote: ↑01 Sep 2019, 13:08 As it stands, I am giving the 'but he's still very young' argument no credit, because he's shown absolutely no improvement or change in his approach when he fights good opposition. It's the exact same thing every time and it's been 3 losses now. I think we probably see him burnt out earlier too.

Some guys get set in their ways early and never really change it up.

greg wrote: ↑01 Sep 2019, 13:35 ..actually I thought it's the best Hughie I've seen so far, at least he was not UNWILLING to engage, of course it was not enough..

sturm vogel wrote: ↑31 Aug 2019, 23:05

JohnReed wrote: ↑31 Aug 2019, 20:53

I don't mean to be argumentative, but you are wrong about Bugner. The reality is that the prime Bugner was easily a higher class fighter than Hughie, possibly in every respect too. I'm talking about the 1973-1976 version of Bugner, especially the one who fought Ali and Frazier in 1973. Bugner's defensive skills, and hand/foot speed were no less good than Hughies. And Bugner's durability was far superior to Hughie's, I think.

Bugner's problem is that when he was put under serious pressure, he went into his defensive shell, and for some reason he stayed there. That's how he lost fights he should have won. Joe also had problems sustaining his offensive, possibly because he was a tad musclebound (that's what Henry Cooper said, at least). But Bugner's flaws weren't as bad as Hughie's.

I can't imagine a prime Bugner being made to feel vulnerable -- and put on the run -- by the likes of Parker and Pulev. Also, I'm certain that a prime Bugner would have used his left jab effectively enough to have outpointed the burned out, aged version of Povektin that Hughie "lost" to today.

eads like this Hughie Fury...

Bugner lost every time he stepped up to a higher level

-Not unlike this Hughie Fury...

JohnReed wrote: ↑01 Sep 2019, 14:52

sturm vogel wrote: ↑31 Aug 2019, 23:05

eads like this Hughie Fury...

Bugner lost every time he stepped up to a higher level

-Not unlike this Hughie Fury...

But the big difference is that Bugner's losing efforts to Ali (first fight) and Frazier were top notch performances that established him as a legitimate, world-class contender. After the world saw those 1973 Bugner efforts, everyone knew that Joe was unquestionably one of the top eight heavies in the world. After the Frazier fight, some people even speculated that Bugner might be the world's fifth best heavyweight, right behind Ali, Foreman, Frazier, and Norton.

By contrast, Hughie's losing efforts confirm that he is merely a fringe contender. Not a legitimate world-class fighter in any way (as Bugner was). But rather, a top-20 or top-25 guy.

Therefore, no comparison between Bugner and Hughie.

oogiebe wrote: ↑01 Sep 2019, 13:46 By CompuBox

Heavyweights Alexander Povetkin (9 of 33) and Hughie Fury (7 of 25) combined to land 16 of 55 punches per round. The heavyweight average for one fighter is 15 of 45 per round.

oogiebe wrote: ↑01 Sep 2019, 14:59

JohnReed wrote: ↑01 Sep 2019, 14:52

But the big difference is that Bugner's losing efforts to Ali (first fight) and Frazier were top notch performances that established him as a legitimate, world-class contender. After the world saw those 1973 Bugner efforts, everyone knew that Joe was unquestionably one of the top eight heavies in the world. After the Frazier fight, some people even speculated that Bugner might be the world's fifth best heavyweight, right behind Ali, Foreman, Frazier, and Norton.

By contrast, Hughie's losing efforts confirm that he is merely a fringe contender. Not a legitimate world-class fighter in any way (as Bugner was). But rather, a top-20 or top-25 guy.

Therefore, no comparison between Bugner and Hughie.

None.

Onetimeonly wrote: ↑01 Sep 2019, 15:05

oogiebe wrote: ↑01 Sep 2019, 13:46 By CompuBox

Heavyweights Alexander Povetkin (9 of 33) and Hughie Fury (7 of 25) combined to land 16 of 55 punches per round. The heavyweight average for one fighter is 15 of 45 per round.

I made a huge mistake and put this on, I fell asleep in the second and missed the first 3 rounds of loma.

Onetimeonly wrote: ↑01 Sep 2019, 15:05

oogiebe wrote: ↑01 Sep 2019, 14:59

None.

Bugner could well be #1 today.

oogiebe wrote: ↑01 Sep 2019, 15:06

Onetimeonly wrote: ↑01 Sep 2019, 15:05

Bugner could well be #1 today.

Wouldn't go that far, but he'd give the top guys a lot of problems.

Onetimeonly wrote: ↑01 Sep 2019, 15:11

oogiebe wrote: ↑01 Sep 2019, 15:06
Wouldn't go that far, but he'd give the top guys a lot of problems.

He's definitely better than anyone Hughie has faced. Ruiz would have nothing for him. I'd favor fury most over him, but at 5 jabs a Rd Joe would be much more active. Kind of ironic that he was known as a bit of a spoiler in his day but he threw more than any of these guys. Usyk would also be bad news for him IMO.

JohnReed wrote: ↑01 Sep 2019, 14:52

sturm vogel wrote: ↑31 Aug 2019, 23:05

eads like this Hughie Fury...

Bugner lost every time he stepped up to a higher level

-Not unlike this Hughie Fury...

But the big difference is that Bugner's losing efforts to Ali (first fight) and Frazier were top notch performances that established him as a legitimate, world-class contender. After the world saw those 1973 Bugner efforts, everyone knew that Joe was unquestionably one of the top eight heavies in the world. After the Frazier fight, some people even speculated that Bugner might be the world's fifth best heavyweight, right behind Ali, Foreman, Frazier, and Norton.

By contrast, Hughie's losing efforts confirm that he is merely a fringe contender. Not a legitimate world-class fighter in any way (as Bugner was). But rather, a top-20 or top-25 guy.

Therefore, no comparison between Bugner and Hughie.

sturm vogel wrote: ↑01 Sep 2019, 21:18

JohnReed wrote: ↑01 Sep 2019, 14:52

But the big difference is that Bugner's losing efforts to Ali (first fight) and Frazier were top notch performances that established him as a legitimate, world-class contender. After the world saw those 1973 Bugner efforts, everyone knew that Joe was unquestionably one of the top eight heavies in the world. After the Frazier fight, some people even speculated that Bugner might be the world's fifth best heavyweight, right behind Ali, Foreman, Frazier, and Norton.

By contrast, Hughie's losing efforts confirm that he is merely a fringe contender. Not a legitimate world-class fighter in any way (as Bugner was). But rather, a top-20 or top-25 guy.

Therefore, no comparison between Bugner and Hughie.

We compare skill sets. We can't compare competition because one fought in a different time. We can compare the skills based on what both did and do because we have video.