BoxRec

margaret thatcher wrote: ↑25 Apr 2022, 13:31

HomicideHenry wrote: ↑25 Apr 2022, 13:21 a man whose only claim that heavyweight is beating Anthony Joshua

better than any of fury's opponents so far have done

hell, aj even ko'd 2 of fury's best 3 opponents

Older, inactive Klitschko & the novice version of Whyte gosh your arguments get worse and worse as time goes on.

lol, fury beats wlad and it's a great win

literally 1 fight later aj knocks him out but oh no it doesnt count


beating joshua is easily better than anything any fury opponent has done

I think Margaret Thatcher is implying that Anthony Joshua could actually beat Tyson Fury. Once Usyk gets rid of Joshua again I hope this fanboy nonsense will stop. Andy Ruiz beat Anthony Joshua too in more impressive fashion, it doesn't mean anything.

HomicideHenry wrote: ↑25 Apr 2022, 13:58 I think Margaret Thatcher is implying that Anthony Joshua could actually beat Tyson Fury. Once Usyk gets rid of Joshua again I hope this fanboy nonsense will stop. Andy Ruiz beat Anthony Joshua too in more impressive fashion, it doesn't mean anything.

i'd pick fury over aj, you really have awful reading comprehnsion and constantly put words into peoples mouths

tell me all the fury opponents who have done something more impressive than schooling AJ?

ross purrity, corrie sanderss , and lamont brewster all ko'd wlad btw. omg what a joke wlad was!

margaret thatcher wrote: ↑25 Apr 2022, 03:55 i'd say once he's retired he's no longer 'lineal' champ, simple. otherwise he could keep talking for years and years about coming back

if he unretires, he has to win it back

Instead of paying attention to whether they *say* they're going to keep fighting, why not base this kind of decision on whether they actually continue fighting? Like, a certain amount of time goes by with a champion no longer in the ring taking any challenges, then people should stop thinking of him as the champ and start giving that designation to someone who is actively fighting. They all say this or that about retiring, but so what?

squiggy wrote: ↑25 Apr 2022, 14:02

margaret thatcher wrote: ↑25 Apr 2022, 03:55 i'd say once he's retired he's no longer 'lineal' champ, simple. otherwise he could keep talking for years and years about coming back

if he unretires, he has to win it back

Instead of paying attention to whether they *say* they're going to keep fighting, why not base this kind of decision on whether they actually continue fighting? Like, a certain amount of time goes by with a champion no longer in the ring taking any challenges, then people should stop thinking of him as the champ and start giving that designation to someone who is actively fighting. They all say this or that about retiring, but so what?

sure, so for a dude who says he's retired, how long do you give him to fight before he counts as inactive?

Usyk is gonna be all over AJ again. Fury knows that Usyk is all wrong for him, so it ain't gonna risk his legacy.

From what I've seen from Usyk, he is a very multidimensional fighter, a master of angles, great footwork, great positioning, great defense, great punching combos , he is very good at keeping his opponent's mind busy, to not think too much and then he capitalizes on him. Usyk knows very well what type of punches to use in certain moments of the fight, great high pace of fighting, great defense and great heart.

I know that's the point of contention. In my own head, I don't have the patience -- a champ goes a year without fighting, I'm feeling like he's holding that title hostage instead of defending it.
I know that might be a little quick. But if you... like for instance, from 2015 to 2018, no heavyweight in the world who was actually fighting stood a chance of being considered the real champion of his division? Because of a guy who had like disappeared off the scene altogether? To me that's too long. One thing about the real champ, in my mind, is that he's actually involved in the sport.