BoxRec

Supremo wrote:Why?

Because the article is horrendous.

Boxerbeetle wrote:"With black Americans turning their backs on the fight game"

What a pathetic, ridiculous sweeping statement that is. Dire journalism.

Exactly. Last time I checked, Wilder & Jennings are both black & American.........

Whether you agree with the sentiment or not, it's written like I'd imagine a young teen would write about the decline of his favourite TV show.

Ridiculous article.

Claiming Fury can't jab? And Mr Howard's pugilistic credentials are what exactly?

He's their chief sports writer. Says everything about the paper. And as for the "mugs who attend these non-events" line. Absolute liberty!

TheGoods wrote:Ridiculous article.

Claiming Fury can't jab? And Mr Howard's pugilistic credentials are what exactly?

He's their chief sports writer. Says everything about the paper. And as for the "mugs who attend these non-events" line. Absolute liberty!

Who sponsored Haye v Chisora....?

The Sun is nothing more than chip paper in my opinion. Absolute dirge.

[quote="TheGoods"]Ridiculous article.

Claiming Fury can't jab? And Mr Howard's pugilistic credentials are what exactly?

He's their chief sports writer. Says everything about the paper. And as for the "mugs who attend these non-events" line. Absolute liberty![/quo

Some of these ' MUGS' as he calls them no doubt buy his newspaper,or rather used to before they read the article.

ste1983 wrote:effing annoying the mainstream media ignore boxing for 99% of the time and when they do jump on the bandwagon of something big always seem to try and put a negative spin.

Pretty much every sport that isn't football, cricket and rugby union gets the same treatment. In early November Danny Kent became Britains first motorcycling world champion since Barry Sheene 38 years ago and that got no coverage, he'd no doubt have got more coverage if he'd crashed and died instead. Tennis wouldn't get the coverage it does if it wasn't for Andy Murray either because there's no other top star from Britain, you'd get a couple of pages dedicated to Wimbledon, the odd page for the other Grand Slams but you wouldn't be hearing about the filler tournaments like we do now.

I've hardly seen anything about Degales win this weekend either. Football and celebrity gossip is the money spinner for these lot everything else is just paper filler.

What garbage, that's poor even for that paper

"Two giant seals occasionally flapping their flippers"

Disgraceful article, and proof of why the Sun is such a piece of trash.

Whatever you think about the fight, or about the state of heavyweight boxing, the overriding emotion should be pride in a Brit overcoming the odds to become the champion. It was clumsy, it wasn't a great spectacle, but Fury is a Brit and did us proud. I am not a big fan of him personally, but he stuck to his guns and picked up the win.

TheGoods wrote:Ridiculous article.

Claiming Fury can't jab? And Mr Howard's pugilistic credentials are what exactly?

He's their chief sports writer. Says everything about the paper. And as for the "mugs who attend these non-events" line. Absolute liberty!

This is the Guardian and Observers chief sports writer.

https://twitter.com/ianprior/status/670752080647364608

The Times

https://twitter.com/DickinsonTimes/stat ... 8791987200

https://twitter.com/DickinsonTimes/stat ... 7584644096

Telegraph

https://twitter.com/_PaulHayward/status ... 2343440385

He's already had this sort of shit from Ollie Holt in the Mail on Sunday, who names Mike Tyson as one of his sporting heroes, the fornicating hypocrite.

Absolute set of pudenda, posh boys who got their jobs through arse kissing and are now trying to talk about a sport they don't watch and know nothing about. Trying to take the moral high ground when half of them work for Rupert Murdoch.

it's disgraceful, and there is an equally bad one in The Times today by Matt Dickinson, slating Fury for saying he would kill pedos!

So Fury v Klitschko means all this rubbish, yet Chelsea v Spurs was absolute dross too yet I havent seen too many editorial pieces saying that football is dead. Fury v Klit was one fight, that's all and I happened to enjoy it.

danamba7 wrote:

Boxerbeetle wrote:"With black Americans turning their backs on the fight game"

What a pathetic, ridiculous sweeping statement that is. Dire journalism.

Exactly. Last time I checked, Wilder & Jennings are both black & American.........

The article was bloody awful. Yes black Americans used to dominate world heavy boxing but everyone else has caught up with training methods, countries that used to ban pro boxing now compete, countries that weren't into boxing now take it seriously etc etc. look how global amateur boxing is now? Champions and medalists from everywhere including India and China, traditionally non-boxing territories.

And does this guy forget that there were some awful champions in the 80s. And Wlad has beaten every black American he has fought as champion. What a strange comment.

Yes it wasn't a fantastic spectacle but Tyson is 6ft9 and moves well for a big man and has very long arms. I do think the modern heavyweight can look a bit clumsier than Ali/Norton/Frazier etc but these men are behemoths, much bigger and more powerful.

Lennox Lewis could look clumsy at times. Anyway this is an awful article, by a crap journalist, in a sensationalist paper. I hope this idiot doesn't bump into one of Fury's camp soon, it was bloody disrespectful.

Horse wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:I have to say, I generally agree.

It was a woeful fight, a complete non event, the showboating and buildup were more entertaining than any of the actual 'action' in the ring.

Fury won, but he landed absolutely bugger all, he just landed more than Wlad who did virtually nothing until the last round. I'm not sure whether Wlad's reflexes let him down and he couldn't pull the trigger, or more likely he was just bemused by Tyson's movement and not knowing what he would do next.

The fact that a 39 year old was able to dominate the division until now does attest to the state of the division.

Fury might be the next big thing, but if that win was any indication of the future of the division, then it's going to be pretty painful. Let's be honest, that win by Fury, was just as boring, in fact, more boring than Wlad's defences over the last 10 years.

Fury avoided engaging with Wlad like the plague - as it was the only way his team thought he could win.

I'm happy for team fury, but as a genuine world heavyweight title fight, for the title of best heavyweight in the world - it was utterly dire. You only have to look at the terrible punch stats to see that.

Let's not gloss over how awful it was because 'our guy' won it. If Wlad had won in a similar fashion, he'd have been criticised left right and centre.

I disagree.

An article like this should not be published by a British newspaper.

Really, why not? Should we ignore the fact that it was a terrible fight, out of sense of overriding patriotism.

One of the reasons I follow boxing is that it doesn't demand jingoistic patriotism.

Whoever won the fight, it stunk, and to imply that was all Wlad's fault, is utter cobblers, Fury did the absolute bare minimum to steal fights.

I do find it rather hilarious after all of his talk before hand about how he would produce excitement - that his title winning effort was so devoid of effort, excitement, and most of all, clean punching.

Obviously that's his first title winning effort, so we have to give him a chance to produce the goods, he may improve as a champ, and become more confident, but I cannot say I'm licking my lips at the prospect of his title defences. He's already blown out Wilder as a novice, which is a worrying sign to me, as he'd said he'd take on all comers as champ.

The Jury is out, but I agree the fight was utter dogshite. The article was not a particularly well written one, but I agree with the sentiment.

The fact that both men combined threw the same number of punches in an entire fight as Ali and Frazier did in one round of one of their fights, says a lot.

It's many years since I've seen a great heavyweight title fight, the last one was probably Holyfield v Bowe II - I can't think of another of that standard since.

expe wrote:

TheGoods wrote:Ridiculous article.

Claiming Fury can't jab? And Mr Howard's pugilistic credentials are what exactly?

He's their chief sports writer. Says everything about the paper. And as for the "mugs who attend these non-events" line. Absolute liberty!

This is the Guardian and Observers chief sports writer.

https://twitter.com/ianprior/status/670752080647364608

The Times

https://twitter.com/DickinsonTimes/stat ... 8791987200

https://twitter.com/DickinsonTimes/stat ... 7584644096

Telegraph

https://twitter.com/_PaulHayward/status ... 2343440385

He's already had this sort of poo from Ollie Holt in the Mail on Sunday, who names Mike Tyson as one of his sporting heroes, the effing hypocrite.

Absolute set of pudenda, posh boys who got their jobs through arse kissing and are now trying to talk about a sport they don't watch and know nothing about. Trying to take the moral high ground when half of them work for Rupert Murdoch.

What has their background got to do with it - ? Does being posh mean you can't observe a sport.

How do you know they don't follow the sport?

Actually, reading the twitter feeds, it does seem like a hatchet job.

I don't agree with much of what Tyson fury says, but since when have I looked at a heavyweight champ as a role model? I don't expect them to be any more moral than any other sector of society.

MarkMcBurney wrote:

TheGoods wrote:Ridiculous article.

Claiming Fury can't jab? And Mr Howard's pugilistic credentials are what exactly?

He's their chief sports writer. Says everything about the paper. And as for the "mugs who attend these non-events" line. Absolute liberty!

Who sponsored Haye v Chisora....?

The Sun is nothing more than chip paper in my opinion. Absolute dirge.

That I entirely agree with.

Not bought a copy in 10 years.

Prior, Dickinson, Hayward and the rest are "1 fight a year" journos who know f*ck all.

To give him no credit simply because of some dubious religious comments (and when we know he often just says these thing for a reaction0 is absolutely pathetic. Wan*ers.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:I have to say, I generally agree.

It was a woeful fight, a complete non event, the showboating and buildup were more entertaining than any of the actual 'action' in the ring.

Fury won, but he landed absolutely bugger all, he just landed more than Wlad who did virtually nothing until the last round. I'm not sure whether Wlad's reflexes let him down and he couldn't pull the trigger, or more likely he was just bemused by Tyson's movement and not knowing what he would do next.

The fact that a 39 year old was able to dominate the division until now does attest to the state of the division.

Fury might be the next big thing, but if that win was any indication of the future of the division, then it's going to be pretty painful. Let's be honest, that win by Fury, was just as boring, in fact, more boring than Wlad's defences over the last 10 years.

Fury avoided engaging with Wlad like the plague - as it was the only way his team thought he could win.

I'm happy for team fury, but as a genuine world heavyweight title fight, for the title of best heavyweight in the world - it was utterly dire. You only have to look at the terrible punch stats to see that.

Let's not gloss over how awful it was because 'our guy' won it. If Wlad had won in a similar fashion, he'd have been criticised left right and centre.

This basically.

I want to see Fury fight Povetkin, Luiz Ortiz, Wilder, Joshua and Haye. Hopefully one of them will happen in 2016.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Actually, reading the twitter feeds, it does seem like a hatchet job.

I don't agree with much of what Tyson fury says, but since when have I looked at a heavyweight champ as a role model? I don't expect them to be any more moral than any other sector of society.

Yeah great point.... Why should they be? They beat people up for money for god's sake! If you look at heavyweight boxing champions over the years you have every type of degenerate - wife beaters, steroid abusers, coke heads, criminals, crack heads, gangsters, bullies and other wrong uns. Some good people too, but why would the ability to render someone unconscious make you a role model?

keithmoonhangover wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:I have to say, I generally agree.

It was a woeful fight, a complete non event, the showboating and buildup were more entertaining than any of the actual 'action' in the ring.

Fury won, but he landed absolutely bugger all, he just landed more than Wlad who did virtually nothing until the last round. I'm not sure whether Wlad's reflexes let him down and he couldn't pull the trigger, or more likely he was just bemused by Tyson's movement and not knowing what he would do next.

The fact that a 39 year old was able to dominate the division until now does attest to the state of the division.

Fury might be the next big thing, but if that win was any indication of the future of the division, then it's going to be pretty painful. Let's be honest, that win by Fury, was just as boring, in fact, more boring than Wlad's defences over the last 10 years.

Fury avoided engaging with Wlad like the plague - as it was the only way his team thought he could win.

I'm happy for team fury, but as a genuine world heavyweight title fight, for the title of best heavyweight in the world - it was utterly dire. You only have to look at the terrible punch stats to see that.

Let's not gloss over how awful it was because 'our guy' won it. If Wlad had won in a similar fashion, he'd have been criticised left right and centre.

This basically.

I want to see Fury fight Povetkin, Luiz Ortiz, Wilder, Joshua and Haye. Hopefully one of them will happen in 2016.

Yes, I don't think Fury will be able to employ similar tactics against that list and get away with it. None of them are as naturally cautious as Wlad.

It does seem Fury has been become more and more circumspect as he's stepped up the level of competition himself.

However, i'm willing to wait and see before pouring scorn on him. Shitty title fight, but now he's won, let's see what he can do.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Really, why not? Should we ignore the fact that it was a terrible fight, out of sense of overriding patriotism.

One of the reasons I follow boxing is that it doesn't demand jingoistic patriotism.

Tyson Fury has just done something great and the article tears him apart like he is a piece of garbage.

It is a disgraceful article.

Horse wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Really, why not? Should we ignore the fact that it was a terrible fight, out of sense of overriding patriotism.

One of the reasons I follow boxing is that it doesn't demand jingoistic patriotism.

Tyson Fury has just done something great and the article tears him apart like he is a piece of garbage.

It is a disgraceful article.

I agree that the article is negative in the extreme. No matter how poor a fight it was, and it was very poor, he deserves respect for achieving something nobody else has come close to in over a decade.

However, this is the sun we're talking about here. Why the surprise?

jamesmcdonnell wrote:I agree that the article is negative in the extreme. No matter how poor a fight it was, and it was very poor, he deserves respect for achieving something nobody else has come close to in over a decade.

However, this is the sun we're talking about here. Why the surprise?

I thought even The Sun had higher standards than this.

Horse wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:I agree that the article is negative in the extreme. No matter how poor a fight it was, and it was very poor, he deserves respect for achieving something nobody else has come close to in over a decade.

However, this is the sun we're talking about here. Why the surprise?

I thought even The Sun had higher standards than this.