BoxRec

Tanzio wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:They both sucked, Mayweather at least exhibited his skills. The other three guys did nothing.

I disagree. Fury showed good skill. FMJ simply followed the choreography.

Fury just had the balls to occasionally punch, his opponent lacked that. He'll make for exciting fights after wlad.

Tanzio wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:They both sucked, Mayweather at least exhibited his skills. The other three guys did nothing.

I disagree. Fury showed good skill. FMJ simply followed the choreography.

Floyd vs Pac was a better fight in any given round than the entire Wlad vs Fury fight was. Wlad vs Fury is one of the worst fights I've ever seen.

The Revival wrote:

Tanzio wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:They both sucked, Mayweather at least exhibited his skills. The other three guys did nothing.

I disagree. Fury showed good skill. FMJ simply followed the choreography.

Floyd vs Pac was a better fight in any given round than the entire Wlad vs Fury fight was. Wlad vs Fury is one of the worst fights I've ever seen.

I disagree. First of all, FMJ v Pac was a choreographed dance exhibition. The milonga I attended Saturday night was far more entertaining than their act.

Flury v Wlad was far more interesting than the foregone conclusion in May.

Tanzio wrote: I disagree. First of all, FMJ v Pac was a choreographed dance exhibition. The milonga I attended Saturday night was far more entertaining than their act.

Flury v Wlad was far more interesting than the foregone conclusion in May.

Fury vs Wlad was garbage. Made me think less of both fighters involved.

This is obviously for the April 1 , The April Fools Day Edition .

It was easily the worst fight of 2015 by a reigning champion . Absolute disgrace . Wlad gave a shameful performance , Fury beat him but is a limited boxer. Kovalev would beat him .

The Heavyweight division is easily the worst division talent wise in all of boxing .

Vitali Klitschko needs to come back and show them how a champion behaves . Yes it would take a 45 year old to restore some dignity to the Heavyweight division .

Hmm.. determining between which two crappy "mega" fights was the least crappiest. I think I'll pass...

Was more impressed with Postol's win over Matthyssee. But both that fight and the Fury/Klitschko fight had something in common - underdogs that if you listened to the "professional" critics, would be doing something special to overcome the odds, but predictably the post fight commentary turned into simple matter-of-fact. That's boxing in a nutshell. Can't take it seriously.

After a couple rounds, the Mayweather/Manny fight was a foregone conclusion. At least the Fury fight kept me intrigued throughout. Wlad would start each round off aggressively giving off the impression that he might be able to end things. Then, 30 seconds into each round, he would give up being aggressive and just plod forward.

But, both fights blew.

With that said, I have no issue with Fury receiving the honor. The performance was no where near aesthetically pleasing, but it was a top achievement. If we based a fighters worth on aesthetics, fighters like Hopkins and Lara would not get any recognition at all.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:They both sucked, Mayweather at least exhibited his skills. The other three guys did nothing.

Exactly!!

Undefeated49-0 wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:They both sucked, Mayweather at least exhibited his skills. The other three guys did nothing.

Exactly!!

If you two are so into predictability, why even bother watching the fights? Of course Mayweather has great skill, but you always know exactly what's going to happen. In a Fury or Wilder fight, you have no idea what will happen.

Tony1244 wrote:

Undefeated49-0 wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:They both sucked, Mayweather at least exhibited his skills. The other three guys did nothing.

Exactly!!

If you two are so into predictability, why even bother watching the fights? Of course Mayweather has great skill, but you always know exactly what's going to happen. In a Fury or Wilder fight, you have no idea what will happen.

What's wrong with that? There was never a guarantee that someone wouldn't be able to catch Mayweather with a shot and KO him, he has been caught on a couple of occasions but he just have a damn good/underrated beard. A lesser fighter would've been KO'd, look what Shane did to MargoCheato, Pac did to Hatton, Maidana did to Lopez, the thing they all have in common is that each of them caught Floyd with their best shot(s) but none knocked him down or out and they have all been able to put fighters with lesser beards to sleep or on the canvas.

The unpredictable could've happened to Floyd just as it did to Jones.

Honestly even though I don't like him and don't think he's that good, Fury is the obvious choice for FOTY. To me, the only other alternatives were:

1) Mayweather. There's a solid argument for him but Pacquiao is past his best and Berto was an embarrassing choice of opponents. So I think Fury edges him out.

2) Canelo. Very good year for him, but Cotto was not a dominant champ the way Klitchko was, and Kirkland hasn't really been a top guy since he went to jail on that gun charge several years ago.

3) Golovkin. 3 KOs in 3 fights is nice, but the level of opposition is just not there. Monroe is basically a nobody and Lemieux is decent but was highly overrated because he held an ABC belt.

jujigatame wrote:Honestly even though I don't like him and don't think he's that good, Fury is the obvious choice for FOTY. To me, the only other alternatives were:

1) Mayweather. There's a solid argument for him but Pacquiao is past his best and Berto was an embarrassing choice of opponents. So I think Fury edges him out.

2) Canelo. Very good year for him, but Cotto was not a dominant champ the way Klitchko was, and Kirkland hasn't really been a top guy since he went to jail on that gun charge several years ago.

3) Golovkin. 3 KOs in 3 fights is nice, but the level of opposition is just not there. Monroe is basically a nobody and Lemieux is decent but was highly overrated because he held an ABC belt.

Klitschko who is older than Manny, throws one shot at a time and clinch/hugs/holds and is slow isn't PAST HIS BEST??

That's how Klitchko has fought for a decade while still managing to dominate the whole HW division, while Manny ate a brutal KO at Marquez's hands and hadn't done much since. To be accurate I'd say they're both past their best but the Klitchko win was more significant because of the way he'd dominated opponents for years and hadn't shown many signs of slowing down.

So for me it's:

1) Fury
2) Mayweather
3) Canelo
4) Golovkin
5) Kovalev

People thinking Fury is Fighter of the Year makes me sick

jujigatame wrote:That's how Klitchko has fought for a decade while still managing to dominate the whole HW division, while Manny ate a brutal KO at Marquez's hands and hadn't done much since. To be accurate I'd say they're both past their best but the Klitchko win was more significant because of the way he'd dominated opponents for years and hadn't shown many signs of slowing down.

So for me it's:

1) Fury
2) Mayweather
3) Canelo
4) Golovkin
5) Kovalev

Like i said in the other thread, this must be the most narrow-minded criteria for determining FOTY if he beat someone who just throws one shot and then hugs. So any fighter who faces any top opponent that throws one shot and hugs should get FOTY for the next year and so on and so forth.

The criteria is beating a dominant long-standing champ. Style has nothing to do with it.

And to prove I have no anti-Mayweather bias, I even suggested he could be FOTY the year before (when he beat Maidana twice) and everyone jumped all over me and said I was being stupid and that it was obviously Crawford.

jujigatame wrote:The criteria is beating a dominant long-standing champ. Style has nothing to do with it.

And to prove I have no anti-Mayweather bias, I even suggested he could be FOTY the year before (when he beat Maidana twice) and everyone jumped all over me and said I was being stupid and that it was obviously Crawford.

So that's all one has to do is beat someone who is a long standing champ, no matter how they do it or no matter how lame that Champ is/over the hill/past it he is then that's all that is required.

I never called you stupid and for me it isn't about Mayweather at all because had Floyd fought Berto and Maidana in the same year and other fighters fought more worthy competition then I'd be the first to say that he doesn't deserve to be FOTY.

To me it comes down to not only who you beat but how good were they at the time you beat them and how much you dominated them when you did.

Personally I don't see Fury beating a prime Klits and he didn't face a young Klits nor dominate him in their bout, so for those reasons I wouldn't crown him as FOTY.

The problem is, there wasn't much evidence Wlad had declined before this. He always fought with that same 1-shot and clinch style and he dominated the division for years. Fury was just the first guy who was able to deal with it.

The Revival wrote:People thinking Fury is Fighter of the Year makes me sick

Why? Just because it wasn't the most exciting fight in the world? Either was Leonard vs. Benitez and I think he won FOTY that year, and Fury is a HW and that should count for something. Mayweather is usually very boring, and I think he deserved FOTY award some years. Wlad and Mayweather have more in common than many would like to let on. They both can be "Boring" because they usually dominate.

Tony1244 wrote:

The Revival wrote:People thinking Fury is Fighter of the Year makes me sick

Why? Just because it wasn't the most exciting fight in the world? Either was Leonard vs. Benitez and I think he won FOTY that year, and Fury is a HW and that should count for something. Mayweather is usually very boring, and I think he deserved FOTY award some years. Wlad and Mayweather have more in common than many would like to let on. They both can be "Boring" because they usually dominate.

I disagree with that, Floyd actually attacks, counterpunches, throws combos (Wlad never does) and uses lateral movement (Wlad doesn't). I don't see much in common there, yes the both dominated but in totally different ways.

Wlad doesn't have any defense which is why he simply hugs all the time.

Tony1244 wrote:

The Revival wrote:People thinking Fury is Fighter of the Year makes me sick

Why? Just because it wasn't the most exciting fight in the world? Either was Leonard vs. Benitez and I think he won FOTY that year, and Fury is a HW and that should count for something. Mayweather is usually very boring, and I think he deserved FOTY award some years. Wlad and Mayweather have more in common than many would like to let on. They both can be "Boring" because they usually dominate.

Because it was one of the worst fights of all time, and Fury won simply by being there, throwing punches and hitting arms on occasion. Fury is still a sh*t fighter, and several Top Heavyweights could and would beat him if they fought him. Wlad could've beaten him too, he just didn't try.

Gennady Golovkin, Floyd Mayweather or Roman Gonzalez are all better candidates for Fighter of the Year by a wide margin. Particularly GGG or Chocolatitio. They were actually dominant and impressive, and racked up 3 wins last year against Top 10 opposition.

Fury flew to Germany, had the title handed to him, and is Fighter of the Year? Bullsh*t. Simply being Heavyweight Champion is disgraceful enough given the way that fight played out, but FIghter of the Year? Sickening.

The Revival wrote:

Tony1244 wrote:

The Revival wrote:People thinking Fury is Fighter of the Year makes me sick

Why? Just because it wasn't the most exciting fight in the world? Either was Leonard vs. Benitez and I think he won FOTY that year, and Fury is a HW and that should count for something. Mayweather is usually very boring, and I think he deserved FOTY award some years. Wlad and Mayweather have more in common than many would like to let on. They both can be "Boring" because they usually dominate.

Because it was one of the worst fights of all time, and Fury won simply by being there, throwing punches and hitting arms on occasion. Fury is still a sh*t fighter, and several Top Heavyweights could and would beat him if they fought him. Wlad could've beaten him too, he just didn't try.

Gennady Golovkin, Floyd Mayweather or Roman Gonzalez are all better candidates for Fighter of the Year by a wide margin. Particularly GGG or Chocolatitio. They were actually dominant and impressive, and racked up 3 wins last year against Top 10 opposition.

Fury flew to Germany, had the title handed to him, and is Fighter of the Year? Bullsh*t. Simply being Heavyweight Champion is disgraceful enough given the way that fight played out, but FIghter of the Year? Sickening.

Clueless.

My 2014 movie of the year was Fury.

The 2015 fighter of the year is Fury.

Both destroyed Eastern European men.


Coincidence?

I think not!

The Revival wrote:

Tony1244 wrote:

The Revival wrote:People thinking Fury is Fighter of the Year makes me sick

Why? Just because it wasn't the most exciting fight in the world? Either was Leonard vs. Benitez and I think he won FOTY that year, and Fury is a HW and that should count for something. Mayweather is usually very boring, and I think he deserved FOTY award some years. Wlad and Mayweather have more in common than many would like to let on. They both can be "Boring" because they usually dominate.

Because it was one of the worst fights of all time, and Fury won simply by being there, throwing punches and hitting arms on occasion. Fury is still a sh*t fighter, and several Top Heavyweights could and would beat him if they fought him. Wlad could've beaten him too, he just didn't try.

Gennady Golovkin, Floyd Mayweather or Roman Gonzalez are all better candidates for Fighter of the Year by a wide margin. Particularly GGG or Chocolatitio. They were actually dominant and impressive, and racked up 3 wins last year against Top 10 opposition.

Fury flew to Germany, had the title handed to him, and is Fighter of the Year? Bullsh*t. Simply being Heavyweight Champion is disgraceful enough given the way that fight played out, but FIghter of the Year? Sickening.

"""Worst fight of all time??? Fury is crap???""" Lay off the hyperbole please. I'm going to have to call those clueless remarks as well.

Rexob wrote:

The Revival wrote:
Because it was one of the worst fights of all time, and Fury won simply by being there, throwing punches and hitting arms on occasion. Fury is still a sh*t fighter, and several Top Heavyweights could and would beat him if they fought him. Wlad could've beaten him too, he just didn't try.

Gennady Golovkin, Floyd Mayweather or Roman Gonzalez are all better candidates for Fighter of the Year by a wide margin. Particularly GGG or Chocolatitio. They were actually dominant and impressive, and racked up 3 wins last year against Top 10 opposition.

Fury flew to Germany, had the title handed to him, and is Fighter of the Year? Bullsh*t. Simply being Heavyweight Champion is disgraceful enough given the way that fight played out, but FIghter of the Year? Sickening.

Clueless.

I assure you I'm not clueless about Boxing. I know more about Boxing than most posters on this site including you in all likelihood. I'm just not impressed by a guy punching arms, and winning the Heavyweight title because the other guy just didn't fight. I had Fury winning the fight wide on the cards, but it was a suck ass fight.