BoxRec

Loki wrote:

Enlightened-One wrote:

Loki wrote: Any guess as to why he didn't want to fight Wlad?

It could have been contractual, maybe as the challenger his team had agreed to terms that they subsequently regretted.

I’m not sure if he ducked Klitschko out of fear though, but he did clearly admit that he may lose the rematch against Wladimir when interviewed by IFL TV, but perhaps he was trying to sell the fight by adding intrigue or teasing those fans that desperately wanted to see him lose.

It probably was due to the terms of the rematch.

I don't buy that; he'd get a career best payday (he got £5m) from first fight (I think) plus it was in Manchester. Doesn't make sense. Something was wrong with the first bout (apart from it being a snoozer until the last round). Klitschko was so bad, hardly threw a punch.

The phrase “career-best payday” is utterly meaningless in the context of a newly-crowned world champion, because their new found status is supposed to warrant them earning much more than they would have when they were merely world-ranked title contenders.

It’s like the GGG-Billy Joe Saunders situation, the Brit could have technically earned a “career-best payday” (of $1.5m) for facing Golovkin, but then he could have commanded similar or even greater amounts engaging in rematches against the likes of Lee & Eubank Jr, as well as fights against Cotto and Canelo.

So it’s all about context and making the most out of your payday opportunities.

From what I’ve been reading, Klitschko (as the challenger) would have been paid double the amount that Fury was earning (as the champion) for their recently-cancelled rematch (and I think that this was based on the terms of a contract that was signed/agreed before their first fight took place).

Of course, I could be wrong, but my opinion is based on the information supplied by multiple sources. Anyway, I doubt we'll ever be provided with a genuine explanation for Team Fury's reluctance to face Klitschko again.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMNttIrS35g

Fury's lawyer. He's absolutely right about boxing and the drug testing racket ( Look up Doctor Margaret Goodman in Las Vegas. See what her patients say about her ) being corrupt.

Enlightened-One wrote:

Loki wrote:

Enlightened-One wrote: It could have been contractual, maybe as the challenger his team had agreed to terms that they subsequently regretted.

I’m not sure if he ducked Klitschko out of fear though, but he did clearly admit that he may lose the rematch against Wladimir when interviewed by IFL TV, but perhaps he was trying to sell the fight by adding intrigue or teasing those fans that desperately wanted to see him lose.

It probably was due to the terms of the rematch.

I don't buy that; he'd get a career best payday (he got £5m) from first fight (I think) plus it was in Manchester. Doesn't make sense. Something was wrong with the first bout (apart from it being a snoozer until the last round). Klitschko was so bad, hardly threw a punch.

The phrase “career-best payday” is utterly meaningless in the context of a newly-crowned world champion, because their new found status is supposed to warrant them earning much more than they would have when they were merely world-ranked title contenders.

It’s like the GGG-Billy Joe Saunders situation, the Brit could have technically earned a “career-best payday” (of $1.5m) for facing Golovkin, but then he could have commanded similar or even greater amounts engaging in rematches against the likes of Lee & Eubank Jr, as well as fights against Cotto and Canelo.

So it’s all about context and making the most out of your payday opportunities.

From what I’ve been reading, Klitschko (as the challenger) would have been paid double the amount that Fury was earning (as the champion) for their recently-cancelled rematch (and I think that this was based on the terms of a contract that was signed/agreed before their first fight took place).

Fair points but still doesn't answer the question. Why was he reluctant to face Klitschko. Consider, if he takes another year out, who would he face to get this type of £ when he returns? Nobody, barring AJ IF he beats Klitschko. I don't see Wilder fighting anyone from the top 6 soon, so that will probably not happen.

The GGG comparison is slightly vexed, as BJS isn't the lineal 160 champ. Plus, I doubt a Eubank or Lee rematch pays as well as GGG.

x2x wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMNttIrS35g

Fury's lawyer. He's absolutely right about boxing and the drug testing racket ( Look up Doctor Margaret Goodman in Las Vegas. See what her patients say about her ) being corrupt.

I lost all credibility for him when he said Fury was a gentleman.

You guys should ignore Fury until he fights again.

asdfjkl wrote:You can say whatever you want, but he and Rocky Marciano are the only heavyweight champions to retire 100% undefeated.

Joe Mesi and Horace Notice achieved this feat too in heavyweight division...

I think he'll comeback maybe after 1 year after "cleaning" himself in mind and body, let's just the "dust settles down" and he'll come back because he "burnt his film" a lot with last news.

imaioral wrote:

asdfjkl wrote:You can say whatever you want, but he and Rocky Marciano are the only heavyweight champions to retire 100% undefeated.

Because of that he will become a legend in the bookies, and in a few years people will act like he was already planning to retire from Klitschko of because after winning against all good competition he simply had nothing left to proof.

Joe Mesi and Horace Notice achieved this feat too in heavyweight division...

You can't compare Fury with Marciano. Sh1t v Shinola. Besides, Marciano defended his titles.

Loki wrote:

x2x wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMNttIrS35g

Fury's lawyer. He's absolutely right about boxing and the drug testing racket ( Look up Doctor Margaret Goodman in Las Vegas. See what her patients say about her ) being corrupt.

I lost all credibility for him when he said Fury was a gentleman.

Why? Sure he's illiterate and wacky, but I get the impression that he is not at all puffed up and self important and treats people nicely on a personal level.

Loki wrote:Fair points but still doesn't answer the question. Why was he reluctant to face Klitschko.

I don’t think it was because of fear. I am convinced it was because of contractual reasons. We know for certain that Team Fury tried and failed to change the terms of a contract that they had previously agreed to, but they abandoned their attempt when faced with the threat of a lawsuit by Klitschko.

I truly doubt that Fury cares about his unbeaten record. For him, boxing is all about business… and he is very good at marketing himself, despite the fact that he isn’t an exciting fighter to watch.

Loki wrote:Consider, if he takes another year out, who would he face to get this type of £ when he returns?

I think Fury will need a warm-up bout and then he’ll command a massive payday to face the winner of the Joshua-Klitschko fight, probably more than he would have earned for the cancelled 29th October rematch against Wladimir.

Loki wrote: The GGG comparison is slightly vexed, as BJS isn't the lineal 160 champ. Plus, I doubt a Eubank or Lee rematch pays as well as GGG.

Billy Joe Saunders owns the only middleweight world title that GGG doesn’t already possess, which (for most fighters in the division) is an attractive but rare commodity.

If you’re Cotto and Canelo and you want to become a 160lb world champion again, do you (initialy) aim for Golovkin or do you choose the easier route in Saunders instead?

In terms of Lee and Eubank Jr., it’s probable that Saunders would have been paid slightly less than $1.5m to face either of those guys, but the amount would not have been significant (i.e. Andy Lee was earning $1m for his world title defences).

x2x wrote:

Loki wrote:

x2x wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMNttIrS35g

Fury's lawyer. He's absolutely right about boxing and the drug testing racket ( Look up Doctor Margaret Goodman in Las Vegas. See what her patients say about her ) being corrupt.

I lost all credibility for him when he said Fury was a gentleman.

Why? Sure he's illiterate and wacky, but I get the impression that he is not at all puffed up and self important and treats people nicely on a personal level.

Treats people nicely unless they're homosexual or female. A gentleman doesn't make idiotic statements in public, even if he's thinking them in private.

Enlightened-One wrote:

Loki wrote:Fair points but still doesn't answer the question. Why was he reluctant to face Klitschko.

I don’t think it was because of fear. I am convinced it was because of contractual reasons. We know for certain that Team Fury tried and failed to change the terms of a contract that they had previously agreed to, but they abandoned their attempt when faced with the threat of a lawsuit by Klitschko.

I truly doubt that Fury cares about his unbeaten record. For him, boxing is all about business… and he is very good at marketing himself, despite the fact that he isn’t an exciting fighter to watch.

Loki wrote:Consider, if he takes another year out, who would he face to get this type of £ when he returns?

I think Fury will need a warm-up bout and then he’ll command a massive payday to face the winner of the Joshua-Klitschko fight, probably more than he would have earned for the cancelled 29th October rematch against Wladimir.

Loki wrote: The GGG comparison is slightly vexed, as BJS isn't the lineal 160 champ. Plus, I doubt a Eubank or Lee rematch pays as well as GGG.

Billy Joe Saunders owns the only middleweight world title that GGG doesn’t already possess, which (for most fighters in the division) is an attractive but rare commodity.

If you’re Cotto and Canelo and you want to become a 160lb world champion again, do you (initialy) aim for Golovkin or do you choose the easier route in Saunders instead?

In terms of Lee and Eubank Jr., it’s probable that Saunders would have been paid slightly less than $1.5m to face either of those guys, but the amount would not have been significant (i.e. Andy Lee was earning $1m for his world title defences).

Whilst I do agree with some your points, Fury will lose his titles. As much as he says he doesn't care, he does. The Nandrolone and Cocaine verdicts will be out soon, so he's facing a least a year out of the ring before any warm ups notwithstanding his mental condition. I just don't buy this delay if he's determined to make £.

Besides, it doesn't really go in tandem with the Fury and Gorman genetics of a fighting family.

IMO, somethings rotten in Wimslow.

x2x wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMNttIrS35g

Fury's lawyer. He's absolutely right about boxing and the drug testing racket ( Look up Doctor Margaret Goodman in Las Vegas. See what her patients say about her ) being corrupt.

It isn't Fury's lawyer, it's Bobby Gunn's. And that's who's YouTube channel it was posted to. Fury's fans are almost as dumb as he is.

Tyson Fury is mentally unstable. Nothing he says should be taken too seriously.

zorndeslammes wrote:

x2x wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMNttIrS35g

Fury's lawyer. He's absolutely right about boxing and the drug testing racket ( Look up Doctor Margaret Goodman in Las Vegas. See what her patients say about her ) being corrupt.

It isn't Fury's lawyer, it's Bobby Gunn's. And that's who's YouTube channel it was posted to. Fury's fans are almost as dumb as he is.

Like I f'g keep track of what shyster lawyer represents who! He's telling the truth though, and so is Bobby Gunn in the follow up video, and it's about time that people were rebelling against the totally corrupt boxing and the totally corrupt drug testing rackets. I've been trying to do my own little bit of that on the boxing forum.

The bottom line is that Tyson Fury needs and should seek help.

imaioral wrote:

asdfjkl wrote:You can say whatever you want, but he and Rocky Marciano are the only heavyweight champions to retire 100% undefeated.

Joe Mesi and Horace Notice achieved this feat too in heavyweight division...

I think he'll comeback maybe after 1 year after "cleaning" himself in mind and body, let's just the "dust settles down" and he'll come back because he "burnt his film" a lot with last news.

Neither of them has ever been a heavyweight champion.

x2x wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMNttIrS35g

Fury's lawyer. He's absolutely right about boxing and the drug testing racket ( Look up Doctor Margaret Goodman in Las Vegas. See what her patients say about her ) being corrupt.

I just did that, sounds like Margaret don't give a fornicate. Certainly changes my view on that cuntress.

SFW wrote:

x2x wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMNttIrS35g

Fury's lawyer. He's absolutely right about boxing and the drug testing racket ( Look up Doctor Margaret Goodman in Las Vegas. See what her patients say about her ) being corrupt.

I just did that, sounds like Margaret don't give a eff. Certainly changes my view on that cuntress.

I haven't looked there in a while. Did you see the review by that poor girl who was diagnosed with some horrible disease and Goodman gives her the news on the phone: "Hey, guess what, you have leukemia, now f off I'm busy" something like that? Then she was laughing at the patients...

Everything in Las Vegas is run by the mob, certainly including that bitch and her VADA drug testing gig.

x2x wrote:

zorndeslammes wrote:

x2x wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMNttIrS35g

Fury's lawyer. He's absolutely right about boxing and the drug testing racket ( Look up Doctor Margaret Goodman in Las Vegas. See what her patients say about her ) being corrupt.

It isn't Fury's lawyer, it's Bobby Gunn's. And that's who's YouTube channel it was posted to. Fury's fans are almost as dumb as he is.

Like I f'g keep track of what shyster lawyer represents who! He's telling the truth though, and so is Bobby Gunn in the follow up video, and it's about time that people were rebelling against the totally corrupt boxing and the totally corrupt drug testing rackets. I've been trying to do my own little bit of that on the boxing forum.

If Bobby Gunn is "telling the truth" this time, it might be the first time in his life. Find a better source than the sport's biggest carny and his enabler.

zorndeslammes wrote: If Bobby Gunn is "telling the truth" this time, it might be the first time in his life. Find a better source than the sport's biggest carny and his enabler.

It often takes unconventional people to spill the beans on some racket. Conventional people just go along and play by their rules.

x2x wrote:

zorndeslammes wrote: If Bobby Gunn is "telling the truth" this time, it might be the first time in his life. Find a better source than the sport's biggest carny and his enabler.

It often takes unconventional people to spill the beans on some racket. Conventional people just go along and play by their rules.

You're looking for confirmation bias and will accept anyone. I get it.

Boxing is full of bizarre retirements that never lasted. But 2 hours is the shortest I can remember.

Tony1244 wrote:

klitoris wrote:Once he and his wife sniff through all the money he made in the first Klitschko fight, he'll be back.

Exactly.

Look like it didn't take them that long.

klitoris wrote:Once he and his wife sniff through all the money he made in the first Klitschko fight, he'll be back.

I could be wrong but I don't get the impression his wife does it. Tyson is largely a loose cannon who I imagine tends to do his own thing.

Paris always comes across really well in the interviews I've seen of her.

Just wish he'd fornicating fight someone, same with Billy Joe as well. What a waste of time this year has been for both