BoxRec

fornicating noobs.

Next week you'll be saying Anthony Joshua could beat Muhammad Ali.

I've been following boxing since before you were chasing Bilbo for your precious. Just associating a constant jab with a guy that threw about 10 a round in his moment of glory shows how out of your depth you are. The truly sad thing is I think you believe people respect your opinion. You're a clown, Rufus, for our amusement. God does not love you.

Idc what people think. Most happen to be those who repeat what other people say. Nothing original. But if you honestly believe a light heavyweight who never fought anyone close to 6'5", could easily defeat someone nearly 7'0" and made Wladimir Klitschko look absolutely like dogshit--- then you keep on believing such nonsense. I bet you think Roy Jones could have knocked out Rocky Marciano too.

I think the big heavyweights of today are more talented than those of the past by a good margin but we shouldn't totally count someone out just on the basis of height. Charles may have some advantages that could help offset the size gap.

Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑08 Nov 2018, 14:01 I think the big heavyweights of today are more talented than those of the past by a good margin but we shouldn't totally count someone out just on the basis of height. Charles may have some advantages that could help offset the size gap.

Speed, toughness (Marciano proved that) and a high ring IQ are the only strengths Charles has going into this. But I happen to think it'd be more like the Byrd-Klitschko contests.

Early in his career Fury struggled with McDermott whose reach is barely greater than Charles. That may give a blueprint as to how Charles would fight Fury.

Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑08 Nov 2018, 14:24 Early in his career Fury struggled with McDermott whose reach is barely greater than Charles. That may give a blueprint as to how Charles would fight Fury.

When exactly did Fury switch trainers from his uncle Hughie to Peter? Not knocking Hughie at all but Tyson grew in leaps and bounds under Peter Fury. The potential of Tyson was apparent early on, but he didn't get the finesse until getting with Peter.

Context is everything when examining fights. Fury was 26 when he defeated Klitschko, and was 21 against McDermott in what was his 8th pro fight. So I don't think it can be used against him--- though in fairness you said "may give a blueprint", which is fair, though the difference between the first and second match (Fury's 11th contest) between the two men is pretty striking.

Lmao, surely there would be an even more vast difference between fat John and ezz? Rufus logic is whatever suits his argument.

Onetimeonly wrote: ↑08 Nov 2018, 14:41 Lmao, surely there would be an even more vast difference between fat John and ezz? Rufus logic is whatever suits his argument.

I'm assuming you mean John Fury?

By John's own admission in his first interview following his prison release with Kugan Cassius he said that he was nothing more than a journeyman when he boxed in the 1980s. He didn't seem to have an inflated ego about his limitations or worth as a boxer.

Ezzard Charles would have schooled John Fury, but is that really a disgrace? Nah. John Fury in his prime was roughly 6'3" and 230 pounds. I think that the biggest all-around man Charles beat was "Big" Bob Albright (ie, who at 6'1" and less than 230 is certainly not big by today's standards), and he himself was something of a journeyman who was better than John Fury so definitely Charles could and would win.

But against Tyson Fury? No.


Nvm... You mean McDermott... Same difference, McDermott was never more than a British level boxer... So Charles would have decisioned him. Besides McDermott was only 6'3". Not much of a difference to overcome.

As for saying Fury doesn't have a constant jab, you must be forgetting his rematch with Chisora or his match against Johnson or his fights with Hammer and Rogan. Look at the punch statistics, it's always the jab with Fury.

You're clueless.

Onetimeonly wrote: ↑08 Nov 2018, 15:18 You're clueless.

You have YET to draw out a game plan for such a physically small man--- who did not have a good punch (power) could beat a guy like Fury other than running your whiney little mouth about how shitty the heavyweights today are.

You said Fury loses a decision to a man nearly a foot shorter and nearly 100 pounds lighter--- lay it all out man!

The speed and skill difference is more vast than the size. Fury wouldn't land anything clean and the pace would exhaust him. There you go cuntboy.

Onetimeonly wrote: ↑08 Nov 2018, 16:46 The speed and skill difference is more vast than the size. Fury wouldn't land anything clean and the pace would exhaust him. There you go cuntboy.

Considering Charles never fought a man taller than 6'1" and probably never met a man over 230 pounds in the ring I very much doubt it. But you have a right to your opinion. Fury's not some goon, he has speed and skills to match his size. You act as though he's not good at all. Nobody could outbox Klitschko, and Fury did it--- not even Haye who was faster and bigger than Charles.

You act as if Charles is some random light heavyweight instead of the greatest ever

Even the greatest boxer who ever lived Sam Langford couldn't do dogshit to the 6'5" 230 Fred Fulton--- Archie Moore is a solid top five LHW of all time and he failed against cruiserweight sized champions Marciano and Patterson--- and the only reason why Michael Spinks, another LHW ATG, beat the 6'7" 220 Gerry Cooney was because of the giant Irishman being an inactive drug addict who was unranked. I know of no LHW or MW in history who was capable of beating large, athletic boxers. Key word is ATHLETIC. The only large man Michael Moorer ever beat was Mike "The Giant" White, and that guy was essentially a journeyman. When a great little man meets a good athletic heavyweight, almost always the heavyweight wins. It's a matter of physics and limitations. It's not a disgrace for an Ezzard Charles to lose to a super heavyweight from the modern era who was (essentially) the undisputed champion of the world. It's just the reality--- this isn't Rocky Balboa vs Ivan Drago a completely fictional scenario where a small man manages to overcome everything to win spectacularly against a giant. Somewhere down the line people have to wake up and stop dreaming. Charles NEVER fought anyone remotely that big with good skills and good speed on top of it. Yes, Charles is the greater fighter in every way, but he wouldn't win.

People who say size is irrelevant only have to look at how someone like Valuev managed to win a world title. Haye who was fast, powerful and the much better boxer only beat him by MD and he had to run the entire fight as he couldn’t get near him. Also ask yourself why only one CW has had major success at HW. At some point size makes a difference especially when the big guy has world class ability.

I've never seen anyone say size is irrelevant. I did see a way expired holyfield box circles around valuev

Fury has had one stand out victory in his whole career,that win was probably one of the most boring fights in heavyweight history,now he's appearing in fantasy matchups against legends,fights he would get absolutely destroyed in.

Onetimeonly wrote: ↑09 Nov 2018, 12:33 I've never seen anyone say size is irrelevant. I did see a way expired holyfield box circles around valuev

Thats my point, Valuev wasn't good, he won the title because he was big. Had he been 5'10" he wouldn't have been anything.

bigjack wrote: ↑09 Nov 2018, 12:57 Fury has had one stand out victory in his whole career,that win was probably one of the most boring fights in heavyweight history,now he's appearing in fantasy matchups against legends,fights he would get absolutely destroyed in.

Personally I'm no fan of Fury's style but if he kept mobile then no matter how good Charles was he would struggle. Charles is far more skilful but Furys awkward style and movement would be a challenge.

Controversial wrote: ↑09 Nov 2018, 13:12

Onetimeonly wrote: ↑09 Nov 2018, 12:33 I've never seen anyone say size is irrelevant. I did see a way expired holyfield box circles around valuev

Thats my point, Valuev wasn't good, he won the title because he was big. Had he been 5'10" he wouldn't have been anything.

You're right. Not sure what that has to do with this except for fury fits the same mold.