BoxRec

Fury's style is NOW Wlad's kryptonite?

I never get why people say this, because Fighter A lost to Fighter-Type-B, a fighter not of Fighter-Type-B's type might not be the man to beat fighter A.

Counter-puncher wrote:Fury's style is NOW Wlad's kryptonite?

I never get why people say this, because Fighter A lost to Fighter-Type-B, a fighter not of Fighter-Type-B's type might not be the man to beat fighter A.

Fury won because he is the best, not because he is Wlad's kryptonite.

Joshua is not in the same league as Fury. He is getting smashed.

Horse wrote:

Counter-puncher wrote:Fury's style is NOW Wlad's kryptonite?

I never get why people say this, because Fighter A lost to Fighter-Type-B, a fighter not of Fighter-Type-B's type might not be the man to beat fighter A.

Fury won because he is the best, not because he is Wlad's kryptonite.

Joshua is not in the same league as Fury. He is getting smashed.

Surely that's a bit of an overstatement? Beating Wlad doesn't mean he is unbeatable, - he had the right style. It's possible he is, but it's a bit early to say.

Joshua would let his hands go against Fury unlike Wlad, and Fury is still pretty hittable. Added to his fairly limited power I think Joshua batters him if it ever happens.

dirk2686 wrote:Joshua would let his hands go against Fury unlike Wlad, and Fury is still pretty hittable. Added to his fairly limited power I think Joshua batters him if it ever happens.

Fury's got enough power to deal with china chops Joshua.

Horse wrote:

dirk2686 wrote:Joshua would let his hands go against Fury unlike Wlad, and Fury is still pretty hittable. Added to his fairly limited power I think Joshua batters him if it ever happens.

Fury's got enough power to deal with china chops Joshua.

china chops? Thats a bit over the top. He's only been wobbled once, not enough data to suggest he's chinny.

Fury was over against Cunningham, not a puncher of any kind at heavyweight, and was hurt by Chisora in their first fight, quite badly.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:china chops? Thats a bit over the top. He's only been wobbled once, not enough data to suggest he's chinny.

Fury was over against Cunningham, not a puncher of any kind at heavyweight, and was hurt by Chisora in their first fight, quite badly.

Joshua was more hurt against Whyte than Fury has been as a pro.

I reckon his chin is weak. We'll find out more about his chin against Wlad.

Horse wrote:We'll find out more about his chin against Wlad.

No we won't.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

Horse wrote:

dirk2686 wrote:Joshua would let his hands go against Fury unlike Wlad, and Fury is still pretty hittable. Added to his fairly limited power I think Joshua batters him if it ever happens.

Fury's got enough power to deal with china chops Joshua.

china chops? Thats a bit over the top. He's only been wobbled once, not enough data to suggest he's chinny.

Fury was over against Cunningham, not a puncher of any kind at heavyweight, and was hurt by Chisora in their first fight, quite badly.

Wobbled once against the ONLY credible, but still fat & unfit opponent he's faced to date. Whyte was only there on the back of the grudge or he would have been labelled as just another bodybag at that point in his career.

And I said "seems to be Wlads kryptonite". As in a big, mobile, unorthodox boxer like Fury of which there has been no other that I can remember in recent times. He's unique.

Riddick Blowe wrote:

No we won't.

We may well find that he can't stand up to a solid Wlad jab.

Horse wrote:

dirk2686 wrote:Joshua would let his hands go against Fury unlike Wlad, and Fury is still pretty hittable. Added to his fairly limited power I think Joshua batters him if it ever happens.

Fury's got enough power to deal with china chops Joshua.

Argument can work both ways in fairness. If Cunningham and Pajkic can have Fury on the deck Joshua can have him stopped.

I doubt it matters really given Fury's risible choices post-Wlad. He's clearly got himself into the sort of state whereby even if he comes back and gets smashed up by Joshua there will be those harking back to the 'real' version who beat Wlad in the 2015 stinker.

dirk2686 wrote:Argument can work both ways in fairness. If Cunningham and Pajkic can have Fury on the deck Joshua can have him stopped.

I doubt it matters really given Fury's risible choices post-Wlad. He's clearly got himself into the sort of state whereby even if he comes back and gets smashed up by Joshua there will be those harking back to the 'real' version who beat Wlad in the 2015 stinker.

It was a great fight.

Does no one have any taste on here?

Most people seem to prefer some prospect smashing up a journeyman, rather than a tense, historic fight between two world class fighters.

I'm sure some people would rather watch Floyd v Pacquaio on an endless loop than Gatti Ward, but lets face reality; most don't.

I get the Fury jealousy, I really do. Tactics spot on, mission accomplished etc. But in the eyes of most people who watched it, it was rubbish. On average there were less than four punches landed, per minute, between both fighters.

Horse wrote:

dirk2686 wrote:Argument can work both ways in fairness. If Cunningham and Pajkic can have Fury on the deck Joshua can have him stopped.

I doubt it matters really given Fury's risible choices post-Wlad. He's clearly got himself into the sort of state whereby even if he comes back and gets smashed up by Joshua there will be those harking back to the 'real' version who beat Wlad in the 2015 stinker.

It was a great fight.

Does no one have any taste on here?

Most people seem to prefer some prospect smashing up a journeyman, rather than a tense, historic fight between two world class fighters.

You have to be joking - a great fight! There were barely any shots landed. It was awful

jamesmcdonnell wrote:You have to be joking - a great fight! There were barely any shots landed. It was awful

So do you enjoy most undercard fights more than Fury vs Wlad?

People slag that fight off, but they are willing to watch hours worth of pointless undercard dreck on a weekly basis.

I just don't understand what's going on in most people's heads.

Horse wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:You have to be joking - a great fight! There were barely any shots landed. It was awful

So do you enjoy most undercard fights more than Fury vs Wlad?

People slag that fight off, but they are willing to watch hours worth of pointless undercard dreck on a weekly basis.

I just don't understand what's going on in most people's heads.

I'd say a lot of undercards contain more actual fighting. I don't go out of my way to watch undercard fights, nor pay for the priviledge and sit there to watch them excitedly.

I've been watching boxing avidly for almost 40 years, but I do actually like to see some punches landed. That was more like watching rhytmnic gymastics, or figure skating. I was bored out of my mind. There is a blend of skill and aggression to be had, Duran v Barkley for instance, brilliant defence and infighting, and also punches landed.

Watching doing his best attempt at a viennese waltz for the duration, whilst Wlad stood there feinting for 11 rounds, was not my idea of entertainment, nor was there much artistry to revel in. Wlad was as stiff as a board, and Fury whilst he showed decent movement, is nobody's simulacrum of a prime Ali. It was awful.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:I'd say a lot of undercards contain more actual fighting. I don't go out of my way to watch undercard fights, nor pay for the priviledge and sit there to watch them excitedly.

I've been watching boxing avidly for almost 40 years, but I do actually like to see some punches landed. That was more like watching rhytmnic gymastics, or figure skating. I was bored out of my mind. There is a blend of skill and aggression to be had, Duran v Barkley for instance, brilliant defence and infighting, and also punches landed.

Why don't you take an example of a crap, unimportant fight and say how it is better than Wlad vs Fury, rather than taking the example of a relative classic?

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Watching doing his best attempt at a viennese waltz for the duration, whilst Wlad stood there feinting for 11 rounds, was not my idea of entertainment, nor was there much artistry to revel in. Wlad was as stiff as a board, and Fury whilst he showed decent movement, is nobody's simulacrum of a prime Ali. It was awful.

Again, comparing Fury to one of the World's top ATGs, rather than some undercard nobody.

Counter-puncher wrote:Fury's style is NOW Wlad's kryptonite?

I never get why people say this, because Fighter A lost to Fighter-Type-B, a fighter not of Fighter-Type-B's type might not be the man to beat fighter A.

If wlad throws 5 punches a round, AJ will prove to be a much more lethal kryptonite.its no secret that I don't rate wlad historically, but he's old as fornicate.

Horse wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:I'd say a lot of undercards contain more actual fighting. I don't go out of my way to watch undercard fights, nor pay for the priviledge and sit there to watch them excitedly.

I've been watching boxing avidly for almost 40 years, but I do actually like to see some punches landed. That was more like watching rhytmnic gymastics, or figure skating. I was bored out of my mind. There is a blend of skill and aggression to be had, Duran v Barkley for instance, brilliant defence and infighting, and also punches landed.

Why don't you take an example of a crap, unimportant fight and say how it is better than Wlad vs Fury, rather than taking the example of a relative classic?

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Watching doing his best attempt at a viennese waltz for the duration, whilst Wlad stood there feinting for 11 rounds, was not my idea of entertainment, nor was there much artistry to revel in. Wlad was as stiff as a board, and Fury whilst he showed decent movement, is nobody's simulacrum of a prime Ali. It was awful.

Again, comparing Fury to one of the World's top ATGs, rather than some undercard nobody.

You're the one who made the comparison with undercard fights, not me.

Where did I say I go out of my way to watch undercard fights?

Thing about undercard fights, is you often don't remember the participants, because it's not the main event. It's like trying to remembering who came 3rd in the 100 meter final at the olympics.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:You're the one who made the comparison with undercard fights, not me.

Where did I say I go out of my way to watch undercard fights?

Thing about undercard fights, is you often don't remember the participants, because it's not the main event. It's like trying to remembering who came 3rd in the 100 meter final at the olympics.

So Fury vs Wlad is a far better fight than most.

Horse wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:You're the one who made the comparison with undercard fights, not me.

Where did I say I go out of my way to watch undercard fights?

Thing about undercard fights, is you often don't remember the participants, because it's not the main event. It's like trying to remembering who came 3rd in the 100 meter final at the olympics.

So Fury vs Wlad is a far better fight than most.

Not for me. I found it dismally boring and dissapointing. I've not sat compiling a list of how much I enjoyed every fight I've ever watched, but that one was nowhere near the top, that if for certain.

If you enjoyed it, good for you. I don't think many did.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

Horse wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:You're the one who made the comparison with undercard fights, not me.

Where did I say I go out of my way to watch undercard fights?

Thing about undercard fights, is you often don't remember the participants, because it's not the main event. It's like trying to remembering who came 3rd in the 100 meter final at the olympics.

So Fury vs Wlad is a far better fight than most.

Not for me. I found it dismally boring and dissapointing. I've not sat compiling a list of how much I enjoyed every fight I've ever watched, but that one was nowhere near the top, that if for certain.

If you enjoyed it, good for you. I don't think many did.

I didn't think the fight itself was that great, but given Tyson's unexpected approach and the (during the fight) potential upset made it an interesting fight. And it was more entertaining than any Mayweather fight since Corrales.

boxingknockout wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

Horse wrote:So Fury vs Wlad is a far better fight than most.

Not for me. I found it dismally boring and dissapointing. I've not sat compiling a list of how much I enjoyed every fight I've ever watched, but that one was nowhere near the top, that if for certain.

If you enjoyed it, good for you. I don't think many did.

I didn't think the fight itself was that great, but given Tyson's unexpected approach and the (during the fight) potential upset made it an interesting fight. And it was more entertaining than any Mayweather fight since Corrales.

I'd agree it had some tension, but sadly pretty much nothing happened until the 12th round.

I find mayweather tedious to watch, and have done for many years, I'd say the Hatton fight wasn't bad considering he dropped the boom on him. Maidana fight wasn't bad, neither was Canelo fight.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

Counter-puncher wrote:Fury's style is NOW Wlad's kryptonite?

I never get why people say this, because Fighter A lost to Fighter-Type-B, a fighter not of Fighter-Type-B's type might not be the man to beat fighter A.

If wlad throws 5 punches a round, AJ will prove to be a much more lethal kryptonite.its no secret that I don't rate wlad historically, but he's old as eff.

Exactly, I could imagine three or four different types of fighters who might be Wlads kryptonite. Anyone throwing 40+ punches, etc.

Counter-puncher wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

Counter-puncher wrote:Fury's style is NOW Wlad's kryptonite?

I never get why people say this, because Fighter A lost to Fighter-Type-B, a fighter not of Fighter-Type-B's type might not be the man to beat fighter A.

If wlad throws 5 punches a round, AJ will prove to be a much more lethal kryptonite.its no secret that I don't rate wlad historically, but he's old as eff.

Exactly, I could imagine three or four different types of fighters who might be Wlads kryptonite. Anyone throwing 40+ punches, etc.

Well, Corrie Sanders, Lamon Brewster and Ross Purity for instance....