BoxRec

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

ValMar wrote:Yes, he (TF) is slick, elusive defansive wizard, with a weak chin, unfortunately.

His chin isn't weak, his poor defense just leads to bombs flush on the chin.

"Poor defense" ?? I can not agree with you....Nothing personally, of course.....

ValMar wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

ValMar wrote:Yes, he (TF) is slick, elusive defansive wizard, with a weak chin, unfortunately.

His chin isn't weak, his poor defense just leads to bombs flush on the chin.

"Poor defense" ?? I can not agree with you....Nothing personally, of course.....

Yes, poor, it's his most glaring weakness. Of course nothing personal, I just can't believe people think he's slick.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

ValMar wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:
His chin isn't weak, his poor defense just leads to bombs flush on the chin.

"Poor defense" ?? I can not agree with you....Nothing personally, of course.....

Yes, poor, it's his most glaring weakness. Of course nothing personal, I just can't believe people think he's slick.

....Which current HW should be considered slick, please ?

ValMar wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

ValMar wrote: "Poor defense" ?? I can not agree with you....Nothing personally, of course.....

Yes, poor, it's his most glaring weakness. Of course nothing personal, I just can't believe people think he's slick.

....Which current HW should be considered slick, please ?

None of them.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

ValMar wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:
Yes, poor, it's his most glaring weakness. Of course nothing personal, I just can't believe people think he's slick.

....Which current HW should be considered slick, please ?

None of them.

Ortiz, definitely...
Solis has been....Jennings, partly....

ValMar wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

ValMar wrote:
....Which current HW should be considered slick, please ?

None of them.

Ortiz, definitely...
Solis has been....Jennings, partly....

No, no, no, but they're all better defensively than Fury. Tyson and Wilder are about the same.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

ValMar wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:
None of them.

Ortiz, definitely...
Solis has been....Jennings, partly....

No, no, no, but they're all better defensively than Fury. Tyson and Wilder are about the same.

Never....
Punch power : Fury - 7/10, Wilder 10/10
Skills : Fury - 9/10, Wilder 6/10

ValMar wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

ValMar wrote:
Ortiz, definitely...
Solis has been....Jennings, partly....

No, no, no, but they're all better defensively than Fury. Tyson and Wilder are about the same.

Never....
Punch power : Fury - 7/10, Wilder 10/10
Skills : Fury - 9/10, Wilder 6/10

LOL, I'd have them both at a 3 or 4 defensively.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

ValMar wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:
No, no, no, but they're all better defensively than Fury. Tyson and Wilder are about the same.

Never....
Punch power : Fury - 7/10, Wilder 10/10
Skills : Fury - 9/10, Wilder 6/10

LOL, I'd have them both at a 3 or 4 defensively.

Are you talking about David Price ?

ValMar wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

ValMar wrote: Never....
Punch power : Fury - 7/10, Wilder 10/10
Skills : Fury - 9/10, Wilder 6/10

LOL, I'd have them both at a 3 or 4 defensively.

Are you talking about David Price ?

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

ValMar wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:
LOL, I'd have them both at a 3 or 4 defensively.

Are you talking about David Price ?

Tyson Fury is something of an enema, sorry I mean an enigma. Obviously we are talking about the best Tyson Fury of two years ago, and hopefully one year hence, rather than the walrusesque edition we've recently become accustomed to.

To some the man is Muhammad Ali reincarnate only bigger. To others he's a big-mouth delinquent slob, lacking in talent and social graces. As usual in such a situation the truth is neither one extreme nor the other but somewhere in between.

I think one cause of confusion is to misdescribe any effective boxer (as opposed to a fighter who trades on his physicality) as "skillful" thereby conjuring a false expectation of a Pep, a Locche or a Whitaker for example, when what these fighters really have going for them are other qualities such as speed, reflexes, an instinctive knowledge of how to best apply their physical advantages (or even disadvantages: huh !? - best example I can give would be Tyrone "Mugsy" Bogues- not even a boxing one)

I think people tend to forget/ overlook, just how effective a fighter can be if he has a complete command of the basics, especially at heavyweight, that is to say he has a decent jab, good mobility, good ring intelligence. It helps tremendously if you can top up those basics with one or more of the following, and the more you can add, the further along that road towards greatness you're going to get: natural power, lighting reflexes, a good chin, good stamina, iron will, good technique or even the the ability to make the most of being six foot nine because without that ability, being taller than your front-door can work against you, isn't that right Mr. Price?

So in summing up I don't believe Fury at his best, is/was, a particularly skillful boxer, but he is a very effective one. So I guess whether you want to argue about whether or not what he has can be described as a high level of skill, or something else, doesn't make much difference in a practical sense. Like the great man said "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet", but I feel we as fans should recognize and appreciate the distinction .

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

ValMar wrote:Yes, he (TF) is slick, elusive defansive wizard, with a weak chin, unfortunately.

His chin isn't weak, his poor defense just leads to bombs flush on the chin.

I don't know what Tyson Fury you're looking at. Klitschko and Chisora are both capable of throwing and didn't land crap on Fury. The remarks about Pernell Whitaker make little sense. Whitaker was very short and got tagged up by Nelson, Ramirez, Rivera, De La Hoya, Hurtado, and Trinidad.. He got decked.. He got hurt.. He got beaten.. He got out-boxed and outpointed.. Sweetpea was no Mayweather.. Nobody came close to outpointing Fury in 25 fights and he scored a major upset over Klitschko. Joshua was the favorite against Klitschko. If Fury had any ambition, brains, and discipline he would be a big threat for Joshua.

Joshua is a great Heavyweight and a great boxer-puncher, but Klitschko suckered him into a right hand and had him on the way out. That never come close to happening to Fury.. AJ displayed some surprising moxie -- more than Joe Louis could produce in that same situation with Max Schmeling -- so it does show how resourceful and cool AJ can be if he gets hurt. You're not supposed to be in a situation where you're in danger of being knocked out, but AJ has very little experience. He needed every one of those 11 rounds.. I doubt Fury can pull get his game together again and the only threat to AJ now is Ortiz.. The man is capable of destroying green aggressors as he proved with Bryant Jennings.

ValMar wrote:

RScarf1 wrote:

lazboy wrote:Tyson, on the other hand, has been out of it for a long time, he's not fighting and/or training fit (like Wlad was training wise), he really needs at least one fight before he enters "the lions den". Does he really believe it, is he underestimating Joshua. Is this the only fight that will motivate him or is he cashing out? I just don't think he has a love for boxing and/or training, if I was him I would have a tune up before the biggest of his life if he's taking his career seriously.

Maybe he can fight Robert Helenius as a tune up.

I think Miller would be a proper opponent - big, strong, slow.....

I don't know either of them to be honest, i did look at the boxrec records and either will do as long as its not AJ, Wilder, even Parker or Ortiz. He needs to be in top condition to fight AJ, cannot take it lightly. If he returns to form he has a good chance to outbox out point AJ imo but its not a cake walk and will be far harder than his Wlad win. He's an awkward giant that actually knows how to box and use that giantness and awkwardness.

I think that he should sell tickets to fighting himself in the mirror. Half of you would buy that ppv. The Traveling Coke Troll might lose to his reflection though.

Candyslim, English is not my first language, I had been learning English more than forty years ago. So, often , I can not expresss myself easily, and some nuances are definitely problem for me. So, I hope you will understand me : Tyson Fury is skillful/effective/adept/dexterious HW with a weak chin and questionable behaviour.
...And, you are lucky nation, because you had Shakespeare...

I would be extremely proud ValMar if I could speak your language, or indeed any second language, as well as you do, my own.

candyslim wrote:I would be extremely proud ValMar if I could speak your language, or indeed any second language, as well as you do, my own.

candyslim wrote:I would be extremely proud ValMar if I could speak your language, or indeed any second language, as well as you do, my own.

X2

candyslim wrote:Tyson Fury is something of an enema, sorry I mean an enigma. Obviously we are talking about the best Tyson Fury of two years ago, and hopefully one year hence, rather than the walrusesque edition we've recently become accustomed to.

To some the man is Muhammad Ali reincarnate only bigger. To others he's a big-mouth delinquent slob, lacking in talent and social graces. As usual in such a situation the truth is neither one extreme nor the other but somewhere in between.

I think one cause of confusion is to misdescribe any effective boxer (as opposed to a fighter who trades on his physicality) as "skillful" thereby conjuring a false expectation of a Pep, a Locche or a Whitaker for example, when what these fighters really have going for them are other qualities such as speed, reflexes, an instinctive knowledge of how to best apply their physical advantages (or even disadvantages: huh !? - best example I can give would be Tyrone "Mugsy" Bogues- not even a boxing one)

I think people tend to forget/ overlook, just how effective a fighter can be if he has a complete command of the basics, especially at heavyweight, that is to say he has a decent jab, good mobility, good ring intelligence. It helps tremendously if you can top up those basics with one or more of the following, and the more you can add, the further along that road towards greatness you're going to get: natural power, lighting reflexes, a good chin, good stamina, iron will, good technique or even the the ability to make the most of being six foot nine because without that ability, being taller than your front-door can work against you, isn't that right Mr. Price?

So in summing up I don't believe Fury at his best, is/was, a particularly skillful boxer, but he is a very effective one. So I guess whether you want to argue about whether or not what he has can be described as a high level of skill, or something else, doesn't make much difference in a practical sense. Like the great man said "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet", but I feel we as fans should recognize and appreciate the distinction .

I think this is a very fair summary. Too many people are in one camp or the other. Doesn't seem there is much room for the middle ground, which is where I comfortably sit.

candyslim wrote: I think one cause of confusion is to misdescribe any effective boxer (as opposed to a fighter who trades on his physicality) as "skillful" thereby conjuring a false expectation of a Pep, a Locche or a Whitaker" .... "So in summing up I don't believe Fury at his best, is/was, a particularly skillful boxer, but he is a very effective one. So I guess whether you want to argue about whether or not what he has can be described as a high level of skill, or something else, doesn't make much difference in a practical sense. Like the great man said "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet", but I feel we as fans should recognize and appreciate the distinction .

Pep was extremely skillful... Locche was not particularly skillful. Whenever he met a skillful boxer (not very often) Locche didn't do that well... Whitaker was no Mayweather. He got tagged up by Nelson, Ramirez, Rivera, De La Hoya, Hurtado, and Trinidad... He was skilled, but not outstandingly so.

The Fury of the Chisora and Klitschko fights had a solid stance... good footwork... good feinting skills... good jab... good right lead... good right hand counter... counters well with his left hook... good head movement in slipping and ducking shots... could block, parry, and roll punches well... Fury is not so tall.. so rangy.. so powerful.. so wonderfully athletic.. or so big a puncher that he can rely on his natural gifts to beat anybody.. A man with his less than super unbelievable physical dimensions -- and over-all moderate athletic assets -- still requires a skill-set to be effective and he certainly has it.

Is he a Floyd Mayweather, Jack Johnson, Gene Tunney, or Luis Ortiz??? ... NO... And the skills he has are diminishing because he's not maintaining them.

Nicolino Locche had a handful of stoppages in well over 100 wins as I recall. If he wasn't a supreme technician he sure must have been doing something right.

I know Kalan that once you have formed your opinion about a boxer for good or worse, it's pointless trying to sway you. If someone told me I would encounter a guy on a boxing forum who thought Muhammad Ali was crap (ok not crap exactly but nothing special) and that I would continue to respect that guy and value his opinions, acknowledging him to be extremely knowledgeable, I'd have told that someone he must be on drugs, and yet here you are.

... and I called Fury an enigma !?

candyslim wrote:Nicolino Locche had a handful of stoppages in well over 100 wins as I recall. If he wasn't a supreme technician he sure must have been doing something right.

I know Kalan that once you have formed your opinion about a boxer for good or worse, it's pointless trying to sway you. If someone told me I would encounter a guy on a boxing forum who thought Muhammad Ali was crap (ok not crap exactly but nothing special) and that I would continue to respect that guy and value his opinions, acknowledging him to be extremely knowledgeable, I'd have told that someone he must be on drugs, and yet here you are.

... and I called Fury an enigma !?

He thinks Whitaker and Benitez were easy to hit. It's unorthodox trolling, I'll give him that.

A southpaw troll? I wouldn't call him a troll in all seriousness. He can come up with stuff that seems totally off the wall but then makes a very good case. I frequently think he's talking bollocks but he makes me question my opinions like few others.

Kalan wrote:

candyslim wrote: I think one cause of confusion is to misdescribe any effective boxer (as opposed to a fighter who trades on his physicality) as "skillful" thereby conjuring a false expectation of a Pep, a Locche or a Whitaker" .... "So in summing up I don't believe Fury at his best, is/was, a particularly skillful boxer, but he is a very effective one. So I guess whether you want to argue about whether or not what he has can be described as a high level of skill, or something else, doesn't make much difference in a practical sense. Like the great man said "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet", but I feel we as fans should recognize and appreciate the distinction .

Pep was extremely skillful... Locche was not particularly skillful. Whenever he met a skillful boxer (not very often) Locche didn't do that well... Whitaker was no Mayweather. He got tagged up by Nelson, Ramirez, Rivera, De La Hoya, Hurtado, and Trinidad... He was skilled, but not outstandingly so.

The Fury of the Chisora and Klitschko fights had a solid stance... good footwork... good feinting skills... good jab... good right lead... good right hand counter... counters well with his left hook... good head movement in slipping and ducking shots... could block, parry, and roll punches well... Fury is not so tall.. so rangy.. so powerful.. so wonderfully athletic.. or so big a puncher that he can rely on his natural gifts to beat anybody.. A man with his less than super unbelievable physical dimensions -- and over-all moderate athletic assets -- still requires a skill-set to be effective and he certainly has it.

Is he a Floyd Mayweather, Jack Johnson, Gene Tunney, or Luis Ortiz??? ... NO... And the skills he has are diminishing because he's not maintaining them.

It is almost impossible to compare WW (FMJ) and HW (TF)....For me it is like compare Bolt with some guys who compete at 1500 metars race.