BoxRec

A few people are pleased he won "but are no richer themselves "? What does that even mean? When people on here were pleased Froch won a fight, did they get a share of his purse? The same Froch who deservedly gets huge respect on here but lost twice when taking on the top man in the division abroad...

Fury just got the ultimate boxing body, very very very long arms, very very very long legs and a really realy small hull in the middle of it. So very hard to hit, very easy to give hits, even from a very long distance, he barely needs skills.

Tbh I do think he's better as Deontay Wilder and his next opponend and also better as Glazkov and his next opponend. Fury is the best heavyweight beltholder at this moment out there.

Tuan_Jim wrote:Good thread, and a much needed counter balance to the disturbing 'duh, Tyson Fury big, he beat everyone in history, all on duh same night' school of thought.

In terms of pure talent he is pretty poor, but he has size and a fearless winner's mentality on his side.

Some of the men named in this thread, such as Bruce Seldon, had fine boxing skills, but were hindered by psychological problems.

On the other hand John Ruiz, Nikolay Valuev, Chagaev, Briggs, Lyakovic, Peter, Wilder, Stiverne, Maskaev, Rahman form a pantheon of incompetence. Fury is for the most part better than them.

"Pantheon of incompetence"? Disrespectful rubbish. You get in the ring with them.

Wiggins Pol wrote:

mimmy123 wrote: I cant think of a champion of the world that is worse than Fury for winning the most prestigious title in the world.

The depressing thing about Fury winning the title is the whole grotesque freak show that comes with him, his no necked raspy voiced 'father' his myriad 'uncles', his ever grinning spotty 'cousin', various 'brothers' fat/thin/Cro Magnon (what the hell is wrong with 'Young' Fury, some serious genetic issue there I'm sure?) his orange/drawn on eyebrows wife.

These 'people' shouldn't have a platform, we shouldn't be aware of their existence, we shouldn't have to see or hear them (the in ring display after the Hammer fight was one of the most uncomfortable spectacles things I've ever witnessed) have you ever seen any boxing champion in history drag along ever member of his 'family' like Fury does?

Sooner he get's chinned the better then all these horrors can disappear back to the anonymity they deserve.

Froch? His Mrs and Lee are far worse. Mother and other brother in tow.

Bermane Stiverne, Deontay Wilder, the winner of Glazkov/Martin all worse champions than Fury. Awful trolling

John Ruiz gets a hard time cos he was in unattractive fights. he beat some good names and stayed around a long time. He was effective at what he did even if it was unsightly

Gnome wrote:

Tuan_Jim wrote:Good thread, and a much needed counter balance to the disturbing 'duh, Tyson Fury big, he beat everyone in history, all on duh same night' school of thought.

In terms of pure talent he is pretty poor, but he has size and a fearless winner's mentality on his side.

Some of the men named in this thread, such as Bruce Seldon, had fine boxing skills, but were hindered by psychological problems.

On the other hand John Ruiz, Nikolay Valuev, Chagaev, Briggs, Lyakovic, Peter, Wilder, Stiverne, Maskaev, Rahman form a pantheon of incompetence. Fury is for the most part better than them.

"Pantheon of incompetence"? Disrespectful rubbish. You get in the ring with them.

That's an intelligent argument. If we can only criticise heavyweight boxers that we ourselves can beat then Boxrec content will start to read like a series of announcements from the propaganda department.

Shite thread

tobyh5 wrote:Troll of the highest order and not even one with any logical argument.

If not the case, should think more about what you post as it is how you come across

Who's trolling this time? Get sick of them on the internet, they throw one liners into a debate just to get reactions.

Tuan_Jim wrote:

Stevieb8006 wrote:

Tuan_Jim wrote:
Pointing out to you that you had added nine years onto Klitschko's lineal claim is 'trolling you'?

I honestly don't understand how your brain works.

Fine then. You seem to be spoiling for a fight with me and I just don't indulge such nonsense online. Ultimately you haven't answered my question because you can't to fit your argument. Therefore you have your view and won't let facts get in the way. Good day to you.

Again, I'm pointing out to you that you had added nine years onto Klitschko's lineal claim, which you seem keen to avoid discussing.

As far as your question about 'who has won three rounds in a row' versus Klitschko, my guess would be no one, which puts Tyson Fury in the glorious position of being officially better than Tony Thompson, Marius Wach and yes, that's right, even Francesco Pianeta!!!

Makes you wonder how anyone can dare question his brilliance!

fantabulous

Wiggins Pol wrote:

mimmy123 wrote: I cant think of a champion of the world that is worse than Fury for winning the most prestigious title in the world.

The depressing thing about Fury winning the title is the whole grotesque freak show that comes with him, his no necked raspy voiced 'father' his myriad 'uncles', his ever grinning spotty 'cousin', various 'brothers' fat/thin/Cro Magnon (what the hell is wrong with 'Young' Fury, some serious genetic issue there I'm sure?) his orange/drawn on eyebrows wife.

These 'people' shouldn't have a platform, we shouldn't be aware of their existence, we shouldn't have to see or hear them (the in ring display after the Hammer fight was one of the most uncomfortable spectacles things I've ever witnessed) have you ever seen any boxing champion in history drag along ever member of his 'family' like Fury does?

Sooner he get's chinned the better then all these horrors can disappear back to the anonymity they deserve.

Gnome wrote:

Tuan_Jim wrote:Good thread, and a much needed counter balance to the disturbing 'duh, Tyson Fury big, he beat everyone in history, all on duh same night' school of thought.

In terms of pure talent he is pretty poor, but he has size and a fearless winner's mentality on his side.

Some of the men named in this thread, such as Bruce Seldon, had fine boxing skills, but were hindered by psychological problems.

On the other hand John Ruiz, Nikolay Valuev, Chagaev, Briggs, Lyakovic, Peter, Wilder, Stiverne, Maskaev, Rahman form a pantheon of incompetence. Fury is for the most part better than them.

"Pantheon of incompetence"? Disrespectful rubbish. You get in the ring with them.

What a moronic comment.

So basically the only people who are allowed to post anything critical of a fighter, are fighters who can beat them. What utter rot.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

Gnome wrote:

Tuan_Jim wrote:Good thread, and a much needed counter balance to the disturbing 'duh, Tyson Fury big, he beat everyone in history, all on duh same night' school of thought.

In terms of pure talent he is pretty poor, but he has size and a fearless winner's mentality on his side.

Some of the men named in this thread, such as Bruce Seldon, had fine boxing skills, but were hindered by psychological problems.

On the other hand John Ruiz, Nikolay Valuev, Chagaev, Briggs, Lyakovic, Peter, Wilder, Stiverne, Maskaev, Rahman form a pantheon of incompetence. Fury is for the most part better than them.

"Pantheon of incompetence"? Disrespectful rubbish. You get in the ring with them.

What a moronic comment.

So basically the only people who are allowed to post anything critical of a fighter, are fighters who can beat them. What utter rot.

A debate should be for all people, too many on here slag others off if they dont agree with what THEY say. no one is allowed their opinion. glad I live in the UK where its a free and democratic nation where one is allowed to have an opinion different to others.

How do you go to Germany and beat a fighter many were touting as a top ten all time great of the division and come back and still be a bum?

The mind boggles a little to be honest at this thread.

I'd favour Fury over many fighters who've held a version over the last fifteen years.

I remember when he first started fighting and he looked overweight, clumsy and generally like a big KO waiting to happen. You'd get threads immediately after his fights saying he's this and that and won't do anything, well he's the heavyweight champion of the world and didn't wait and pinch a version of the title in some vacant fight against nobody, he went to the top guy's backyard and beat him. I mean what else can the man do to get some respect?

Throughout his career Fury has been slagged off and many, if not most, made predictions of him losing against Chisora and then David Price ( ) until Tyson eventually too the quantem leap to face Vladimir and trumped him too.

His career has been good entertainment and his crowning glory was a triumph of brains and brawn in beating Vladimir. If it wasn't the fight that people would like to have seen, blame Vladimir. Fury beat a legend at his home game, away from home. That's one of Britain's great victory's.

He's better than most heavyweight champion I can think of. It's about getting the win, not how pretty your jab is, and Fury has proved himself a top ranked performer.

Tuan_Jim wrote:

Gnome wrote:

Tuan_Jim wrote:Good thread, and a much needed counter balance to the disturbing 'duh, Tyson Fury big, he beat everyone in history, all on duh same night' school of thought.

In terms of pure talent he is pretty poor, but he has size and a fearless winner's mentality on his side.

Some of the men named in this thread, such as Bruce Seldon, had fine boxing skills, but were hindered by psychological problems.

On the other hand John Ruiz, Nikolay Valuev, Chagaev, Briggs, Lyakovic, Peter, Wilder, Stiverne, Maskaev, Rahman form a pantheon of incompetence. Fury is for the most part better than them.

"Pantheon of incompetence"? Disrespectful rubbish. You get in the ring with them.

That's an intelligent argument. If we can only criticise heavyweight boxers that we ourselves can beat then Boxrec content will start to read like a series of announcements from the propaganda department.

It's something which really gets my goat with boxing forums - top class boxers being labelled as bums or in this case, a list of former world champions being labelled as a pantheon of incompetence. An incompetent boxer doesn't knock out Lennox Lewis at his prime, put Wladimir Klitschko down on his bum three times in a title fight, etc. It's needless hyperbole and yes, disrespectful.

No personal offence was meant, but as I said, it sticks in my throat.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

Gnome wrote:

Tuan_Jim wrote:Good thread, and a much needed counter balance to the disturbing 'duh, Tyson Fury big, he beat everyone in history, all on duh same night' school of thought.

In terms of pure talent he is pretty poor, but he has size and a fearless winner's mentality on his side.

Some of the men named in this thread, such as Bruce Seldon, had fine boxing skills, but were hindered by psychological problems.

On the other hand John Ruiz, Nikolay Valuev, Chagaev, Briggs, Lyakovic, Peter, Wilder, Stiverne, Maskaev, Rahman form a pantheon of incompetence. Fury is for the most part better than them.

"Pantheon of incompetence"? Disrespectful rubbish. You get in the ring with them.

What a moronic comment.

So basically the only people who are allowed to post anything critical of a fighter, are fighters who can beat them. What utter rot.

Anyone can say anything they want, but there's one thing to be critical of a fighter and another to label a list of world champions as incompetent, as I replied to Tuan Jim.

No personal offence was meant, but slagging off top class fighers as incompetent is going a bit too far in my opinion.

Gnome wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

Gnome wrote:
"Pantheon of incompetence"? Disrespectful rubbish. You get in the ring with them.

What a moronic comment.

So basically the only people who are allowed to post anything critical of a fighter, are fighters who can beat them. What utter rot.

Anyone can say anything they want, but there's one thing to be critical of a fighter and another to label a list of world champions as incompetent, as I replied to Tuan Jim.

No personal offence was meant, but slagging off top class fighers as incompetent is going a bit too far in my opinion.

I actually agree with the sentiment of your argument, but the men I mentioned really are poor second raters who benefitted from an explosion of cheap titles. The exception is Hasim Rahman who, all credit to him, hung in there and did manage to land the right hand of all right hands. He went down pretty fast after that and blew fights he should never have lost. I do find that particular list I gave an especially uninspiring bunch, deserving of derision but at all times appreciating it's a rough game in the ring and it takes men to do it. But man alive were they awful to watch.

Tuan_Jim wrote:

Gnome wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:
What a moronic comment.

So basically the only people who are allowed to post anything critical of a fighter, are fighters who can beat them. What utter rot.

Anyone can say anything they want, but there's one thing to be critical of a fighter and another to label a list of world champions as incompetent, as I replied to Tuan Jim.

No personal offence was meant, but slagging off top class fighers as incompetent is going a bit too far in my opinion.

I actually agree with the sentiment of your argument, but the men I mentioned really are poor second raters who benefitted from an explosion of cheap titles. The exception is Hasim Rahman who, all credit to him, hung in there and did manage to land the right hand of all right hands. He went down pretty fast after that and blew fights he should never have lost. I do find that particular list I gave an especially uninspiring bunch, deserving of derision but at all times appreciating it's a rough game in the ring and it takes men to do it. But man alive were they awful to watch.

No worries, Tuan Jim. You are probably right when in infer that a number of them would not have been champions in other eras. Personally, I am looking forward to the Chagaev-Brown match - Ruslan is still chugging along and think he will knock Big Daddy around the ring.

Gnome wrote:

Tuan_Jim wrote:

Gnome wrote:
"Pantheon of incompetence"? Disrespectful rubbish. You get in the ring with them.

That's an intelligent argument. If we can only criticise heavyweight boxers that we ourselves can beat then Boxrec content will start to read like a series of announcements from the propaganda department.

It's something which really gets my goat with boxing forums - top class boxers being labelled as bums or in this case, a list of former world champions being labelled as a pantheon of incompetence. An incompetent boxer doesn't knock out Lennox Lewis at his prime, put Wladimir Klitschko down on his bum three times in a title fight, etc. It's needless hyperbole and yes, disrespectful.

No personal offence was meant, but as I said, it sticks in my throat.

Ok, I'll go for that, I guess incompetent for someone of world class, which was the context. The idea that any of these men was the best of his era, is clearly laughable, and compared to how good you would have to be in previous eras they were pretty mediocre. Rahman did land a humdinger on Lewis, but it was a ridiculously overconfident and underprepared Lewis, we all saw the true reflection of their abilities in the rematch.

It's never been easy to win a world title in any weight division, and the standard of many of the current world champs is laughable, BJS for example would have European champ at best 20 years ago, he's not the only one, and I'm mentioning him as he's topical.

Imagine him in with the greats of the division, he'd have been absolutely marmalised by Hagler, Leonard, Hearns, Zale, Lamotta, Robinson, - it would have been painful, and yet now, he's good enough to win a proper world title belt.

Being in line for a belt, is not sign of particularly devastating skill set these days.

SNG wrote:How do you go to Germany and beat a fighter many were touting as a top ten all time great of the division and come back and still be a bum?

The mind boggles a little to be honest at this thread.

I'd favour Fury over many fighters who've held a version over the last fifteen years.

I remember when he first started fighting and he looked overweight, clumsy and generally like a big KO waiting to happen. You'd get threads immediately after his fights saying he's this and that and won't do anything, well he's the heavyweight champion of the world and didn't wait and pinch a version of the title in some vacant fight against nobody, he went to the top guy's backyard and beat him. I mean what else can the man do to get some respect?

Who has actually said Tyson Fury is a bum? My mind boggles too!!

mimmy123 wrote:

SNG wrote:How do you go to Germany and beat a fighter many were touting as a top ten all time great of the division and come back and still be a bum?

The mind boggles a little to be honest at this thread.

I'd favour Fury over many fighters who've held a version over the last fifteen years.

I remember when he first started fighting and he looked overweight, clumsy and generally like a big KO waiting to happen. You'd get threads immediately after his fights saying he's this and that and won't do anything, well he's the heavyweight champion of the world and didn't wait and pinch a version of the title in some vacant fight against nobody, he went to the top guy's backyard and beat him. I mean what else can the man do to get some respect?

Who has actually said Tyson Fury is a bum? My mind boggles too!!

Not me ; I may have said it at some stage previous to the fight - which is also inaccurate, but certainly not after the victory with Wlad.

mimmy123 wrote:

tobyh5 wrote:Troll of the highest order and not even one with any logical argument.

If not the case, should think more about what you post as it is how you come across

Who's trolling this time? Get sick of them on the internet, they throw one liners into a debate just to get reactions.

Seriously man, I do not give a feck about reactions. i debate, I comment, I chat but this whole thread is stupid and your comments make no sense at all. You have not replied to my comment about you saying Fury win does not mean a great deal unless he defends the belt for ten years.

Wiggins Pol wrote:

mimmy123 wrote: I cant think of a champion of the world that is worse than Fury for winning the most prestigious title in the world.

The depressing thing about Fury winning the title is the whole grotesque freak show that comes with him, his no necked raspy voiced 'father' his myriad 'uncles', his ever grinning spotty 'cousin', various 'brothers' fat/thin/Cro Magnon (what the hell is wrong with 'Young' Fury, some serious genetic issue there I'm sure?) his orange/drawn on eyebrows wife.

These 'people' shouldn't have a platform, we shouldn't be aware of their existence, we shouldn't have to see or hear them (the in ring display after the Hammer fight was one of the most uncomfortable spectacles things I've ever witnessed) have you ever seen any boxing champion in history drag along ever member of his 'family' like Fury does?

Sooner he get's chinned the better then all these horrors can disappear back to the anonymity they deserve.

Leave the Partridges alone, anagram of Pigg Wilson.

Not really. It says a bit about you, though.