BoxRec

Boxerbeetle wrote:

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.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Really? The paper that lied about the hillborough disaster and vilified Liverpool supporters?

Any opportunity to vilify people, the sun are all over it, unless of course they are tory peers, or other members of the Murdoch empires supporters, sympathisers, or servants.

tobyh5 wrote:Complete hatchet job. Any valid points are buried and destroyed by the utter unfair assault he has put on Fury and even the fans with the "mug" comment.

Awful journalism. I own a regional newspaper company and would probably sack someone for putting that on my desk

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.

J 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.

well said Jim it was dire, good on Tyson but I couldn't believe how slow Vlad was, the whole fight I kept thinking that a prime lewis / Tyson / holyfield would have demolished both of them possible on the same evening.

it was effing awful though I am made up for Fury, mental as he is I quite like him

Metal Fingers wrote:Sports writers aren't the brightest bunch, in the main, as their training is geared towards one subject and, often, one specific area of that subject. They like to get moral every once in a while, but they are so thick and with such a limited range of areas of expertise they tend to make an arse over even the most basic moral stance.

MarkMcBurney wrote:

Horse wrote:No one was prepared to put their name to that dross?

'Journalist' name is on the right mid-way down the page - Steven Howard, who is quite senior in their sport department...

rhino222 wrote:

MarkMcBurney wrote:

Horse wrote:No one was prepared to put their name to that dross?

'Journalist' name is on the right mid-way down the page - Steven Howard, who is quite senior in their sport department...

what was his problem?.... was his free hotel not up to scratch? was his free ringside seat one with a slightly obscured view? was the room service substandard?......

yes it was not a great fight. great story...yes, great fight....no. but the game plan worked and fury generally gives good entertainment value. its surely better than the era of big john tate and tony tubbs......... etc etc!!

reggaereggae wrote:

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.

tobyh5 wrote:Catching up with some of the stuff by the journalists on twitter and an awful article in The Times. Have I missed something obvious? They are calling him a lot of names and making out that he is a real nasty guy and I have never seen an assault like this on a leading sportsperson, especially in the immediate aftermath of a historic win.

I am confused, is there some big secret that everyone knows about Tyson that I have missed?

Deserter wrote: It's a terrible article in general, but I think you're being too dismissive regarding this particular point as he doesn't articulate it well. There seems to be a clear consensus of opinion that participation in boxing from this demographic has declined, in large part because the likes of the NFL and NBA have got so good at identifying athletic talent at a young age and offer packages and routes to wealth and security that boxing can't compete with (and it's not just boxing that's suffered, look at track and field as well).

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

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.

tobyh5 wrote:Catching up with some of the stuff by the journalists on twitter and an awful article in The Times. Have I missed something obvious? They are calling him a lot of names and making out that he is a real nasty guy and I have never seen an assault like this on a leading sportsperson, especially in the immediate aftermath of a historic win.

I am confused, is there some big secret that everyone knows about Tyson that I have missed?