BoxRec

Just thought I would put a list of British past heavyweight champions against Fury and what I think the outcome would be. (70's to 90's)

opinions??

v/s Bugner - Fury win points
v/s Horice Notice - Notice win by stoppage late on
v/s Gary Mason - Mason win KO 5 or 6 rounds
v/s Lennox Lewis - Lewis win by KO 2 or 3 rounds
v/s Herbie Hide - Hide win KO 2 or 3 rounds
v/s James Oyebola - tricky one for Oyebola but win late on 10th round
v/s Scott Welsh - could go either way points.
v/s Julius Francis - Fury win by stoppage 7 or 8 rounds

v/s Frank Bruno (Bruno never won title but had to include) Bruno win KO 6 or 7 rounds.

I've heard of Tyson, Hughie and Phil but not Theory !

twenty six wrote:I've heard of Tyson, Hughie and Phil but not Theory !

got to get up early to get one over you eh?

How would all them of done vs fury when they was 23 as fury is?

What a weird thread. I assumed it was opened by a Fury fanatic, but read it and then kind of accepted the assessments of the results as not being too unrealistic, but then you get the typical crap:
" How would all them of done vs fury when they was 23 as fury is? "

sharpei_louis wrote:What a weird thread. I assumed it was opened by a Fury fanatic, but read it and then kind of accepted the assessments of the results as not being too unrealistic, but then you get the typical crap:
" How would all them of done vs fury when they was 23 as fury is? "

Explain how its crap pal. Boxer named are all from there prime fury is nowhere near is prime. Point i make is how good was they when they was the same age? I think your talking crap not me.

clintonmcphilbin wrote:

sharpei_louis wrote:What a weird thread. I assumed it was opened by a Fury fanatic, but read it and then kind of accepted the assessments of the results as not being too unrealistic, but then you get the typical crap:
" How would all them of done vs fury when they was 23 as fury is? "

Explain how its crap pal. Boxer named are all from there prime fury is nowhere near is prime. Point i make is how good was they when they was the same age? I think your talking crap not me.[/quote

The thread compares how Fury would do against past British champions, there's nothing there to suggest that they are in their prime, or to suggest that Fury will mature into a great fighter IMO. I read your post to insinuate that Fury will improve significantly and the others weren't as good whilst British champions as the OP had them.

I think it's crap because you've filled in all the blanks to lean the discussion towards your obvious like for Fury.

Does that explain it better? I couldn't be bothered writing all that before is all on a theoretical topic.

clintonmcphilbin wrote:

sharpei_louis wrote:What a weird thread. I assumed it was opened by a Fury fanatic, but read it and then kind of accepted the assessments of the results as not being too unrealistic, but then you get the typical crap:
" How would all them of done vs fury when they was 23 as fury is? "

Explain how its crap pal. Boxer named are all from there prime fury is nowhere near is prime. Point i make is how good was they when they was the same age? I think your talking crap not me.[/quote

The thread compares how Fury would do against past British champions, there's nothing there to suggest that they are in their prime, or to suggest that Fury will mature into a great fighter IMO. I read your post to insinuate that Fury will improve significantly and the others weren't as good whilst British champions as the OP had them.

I think it's crap because you've filled in all the blanks to lean the discussion towards your obvious like for Fury.

Does that explain it better? I couldn't be bothered writing all that before is all on a theoretical topic.

clintonmcphilbin wrote:

sharpei_louis wrote:What a weird thread. I assumed it was opened by a Fury fanatic, but read it and then kind of accepted the assessments of the results as not being too unrealistic, but then you get the typical crap:
" How would all them of done vs fury when they was 23 as fury is? "

Explain how its crap pal. Boxer named are all from there prime fury is nowhere near is prime. Point i make is how good was they when they was the same age? I think your talking crap not me.[/quote

The thread compares how Fury would do against past British champions, there's nothing there to suggest that they are in their prime, I mean Lewis was British champ around 25/26? Nowhere near his prime really.
I read your post to insinuate that Fury will improve significantly and the others weren't as good whilst British champions as the OP had them.

I think it's crap because you've filled in all the blanks to lean the discussion towards your obvious like for Fury.

Does that explain it better? I couldn't be bothered writing all that before is all on a theoretical topic.

clintonmcphilbin wrote:Explain how its crap pal. Boxer named are all from there prime fury is nowhere near is prime. Point i make is how good was they when they was the same age? I think your talking crap not me.

He doesn't like Fury.

For him any thread or post that insults Fury is good and any thread or post that praises Fury is bad or "typical crap".

Horse wrote:

clintonmcphilbin wrote:Explain how its crap pal. Boxer named are all from there prime fury is nowhere near is prime. Point i make is how good was they when they was the same age? I think your talking crap not me.

He doesn't like Fury.

For him any thread or post that insults Fury is good and any thread or post that praises Fury is bad or "typical crap".

No, I don't particularly rate Fury. I have no dislike for him, just think he's overrated by a lot of posters on here. I have posted recently that he has improved in terms of fitness and performance, but whatever, I've read a lot more from you Horse than you have from me.

sharpei_louis wrote:I've read a lot more from you Horse than you have from me.

So?

sharpei_louis wrote:

clintonmcphilbin wrote:

sharpei_louis wrote:What a weird thread. I assumed it was opened by a Fury fanatic, but read it and then kind of accepted the assessments of the results as not being too unrealistic, but then you get the typical crap:
" How would all them of done vs fury when they was 23 as fury is? "

Explain how its crap pal. Boxer named are all from there prime fury is nowhere near is prime. Point i make is how good was they when they was the same age? I think your talking crap not me.[/quote

The thread compares how Fury would do against past British champions, there's nothing there to suggest that they are in their prime, I mean Lewis was British champ around 25/26? Nowhere near his prime really.
I read your post to insinuate that Fury will improve significantly and the others weren't as good whilst British champions as the OP had them.

I think it's crap because you've filled in all the blanks to lean the discussion towards your obvious like for Fury.

Does that explain it better? I couldn't be bothered writing all that before is all on a theoretical topic.

I have said nothing to say am a fury fan just that fury is only 23 and at 23 what will the other guys of been like against fury. You post lean the discussion towards your obvious dislike for Fury.

So you just generalise that I am a hater of Fury without basis which is why I felt that the post was crap. I meant that I'll read your posts and reply on their merit rather than assuming your biased from everything you've written before.

sharpei_louis wrote:

Horse wrote:

clintonmcphilbin wrote:Explain how its crap pal. Boxer named are all from there prime fury is nowhere near is prime. Point i make is how good was they when they was the same age? I think your talking crap not me.

He doesn't like Fury.

For him any thread or post that insults Fury is good and any thread or post that praises Fury is bad or "typical crap".

No, I don't particularly rate Fury. I have no dislike for him, just think he's overrated by a lot of posters on here. I have posted recently that he has improved in terms of fitness and performance, but whatever, I've read a lot more from you Horse than you have from me.

There are more overrated british boxers then fury at least he fights regular and puts a show on. For the record am more of a david price fan really.

clintonmcphilbin wrote: I have said nothing to say am a fury fan just that fury is only 23 and at 23 what will the other guys of been like against fury. You post lean the discussion towards your obvious dislike for Fury.

Yeah, that is probably true. I think I posted that in response to what I perceived from yours...sorry.

I admit I was skeptical reading the post as I don't know why the OP would want to compare previous British Champs to Fury, it's either to undermine or exaggerate him in the first place as he's not British champ so the reference is a historic one and must be based solely on the OP's view of Fury rather than the British title lineage.

My opinion is that Fury is overrated and I accept that it has influenced my post, but then it is the reason I did post as I thought again he was being overrated when age relevant comparisons were being made. Lennox Lewis was winning Olympic gold medals a lot earlier than that, so what age do we want to compare them at? I felt that the thread was a comparison of them at the time they held the British title, or was worthless, and that you were moving the goalposts to suit your theory.

But no offence meant, on re-writing the word 'crap' a few times I realised it sounded harsh and I should have explained myself better.

I think you've under-rated Bugner mate - unless you're thinking of the 1996 version.

magnus wrote:I think you've under-rated Bugner mate - unless you're thinking of the 1996 version.

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. Joe Bugner may have been public enemy number one for beating Cooper, but he was a fine boxer with decent power. After his fight with Ali, Bugner was back at his hotel in the swimming pool while Ali was in hospital being treated.

If you're talking prime Bugner Vs 23 yr old Fury, I would definitly take Bugner on points. It's difficult to tell how good Fury will be. And personally I don't think Scott Welch Vs Fury is a 50-50 fight. I think Fury wins comfortably, probably mid rounds stoppage.

Fury would have beaten oyebola IMO other then that good assessment ... Think welch and a prime Francis might have been too good too

Fury would have beaten oyebola IMO other then that good assessment ... Think welch and a prime Francis might have been too good too

Ok, so Fury is 23. What age does the "not in his prime" comments become redundant?



Typed from my balcony in Salou

Do you think Hide would beat Tyson so easily? Only watched Hide vs Vitali again the other day on KOTV and don't think the result would be any different if Tyson fought Hide. Only my opinion though.

Bump this thread in five to ten years time. I watched pulev dimitrenko earlier today. Both would be stern stern tests for tyson, hed have to keep either on the end of that long jab. Strange one pulev, thought he looked good early doors, then had a rough patch, but looked okay againt dimitrenko. Lack of ko power makes him an attractive opponent, although tysons chin hasnt really been checked

Interesting comments of fury being "overated" - id say 50% of the board here dont rate him

Bugner who knocked out Dunn would KO Fury in 2
Bugner who knocked out Dino dennis would Ko Fury in 2