Page 1 of 3

Was Fury exposed a bit?

Posted: 29 Nov 2015, 10:13
by TheLeprechaun
Lets be honest, in Germany that fight was no foregone conclusion to go to Fury on the cards. He even said he thought he wasn't going to get it after the point was taken off. He didn't really go for the KO did he? He was happy to go to points (and possibly lose). I mean, in the circumstances - wlad at home, 5 fight deal signed, 50k+ stadium filler, Germany etc etc, Fury didn't really show me much by way of going for it. I did expect him to box long and for the fight to go the distance (I had wlad winning a decision) so I wasn't surprised but I wonder if anyone was surprised at Fury not really going for the KO and keeping it long, especially in the circumstances where a close fight could be a robbery. Ive seen worse fights called draws or even go to the home fighter.

Re: Was Fury exposed a bit?

Posted: 29 Nov 2015, 10:17
by TheLeprechaun
Put it this way, Lewis against Vitali showed the heart I'm talking about. His back was against the wall and he genuinely went for Vitali and took punishment in the process. It was kind of like what Wlad didn't have the heart to do actually, since Lewis was the one who had to come forward like Wlad did.

Although we did see Lewis stink it out in the Tua fight and others. I just don't think he would have coasted like that and left himself possibly open to a robbery in Germany. He would have been trying to impose his advantage on 40 year old Wlad and bang him out.

Re: Was Fury exposed a bit?

Posted: 29 Nov 2015, 10:20
by Horse
:o

Re: Was Fury exposed a bit?

Posted: 29 Nov 2015, 10:36
by Nightmare Roy
Horse wrote::o
This

Re: Was Fury exposed a bit?

Posted: 29 Nov 2015, 10:39
by Tuan_Jim
Fury was clearly trying to take Klitschko out in the last few rounds. Wladimir, very much like his brother versus Lewis, ended the fight clinging on for dear life.

Re: Was Fury exposed a bit?

Posted: 29 Nov 2015, 10:44
by Stuarty
First person I've seen who had Wlad as winner! Boulder dash!

Re: Was Fury exposed a bit?

Posted: 29 Nov 2015, 10:47
by TheLeprechaun
Stuarty30 wrote:First person I've seen who had Wlad as winner! Boulder dash!


ooops, i meant I had wlad winning as my prediction. Fury won the fight for me

Re: Was Fury exposed a bit?

Posted: 29 Nov 2015, 10:48
by TheLeprechaun
would we all have been shocked if Wlad got the decision? Wlad was favourite with the bookies just before the cards were announced. not saying he deserved it but fury could have got robbed. He didn't go for it enough for me. Makes me think Haye could nick a boring fight against him. He still won though.

Re: Was Fury exposed a bit?

Posted: 29 Nov 2015, 10:51
by Horse
TheLeprechaun wrote:would we all have been shocked if Wlad got the decision? Wlad was favourite with the bookies just before the cards were announced
This is boxing, of course I wouldn't have been surprised if Wladimir had won that via robbery.

Fury was hardly exposed though, was he? Let's not be daft here.

Re: Was Fury exposed a bit?

Posted: 29 Nov 2015, 10:52
by Stuarty
TheLeprechaun wrote:would we all have been shocked if Wlad got the decision? Wlad was favourite with the bookies just before the cards were announced. not saying he deserved it but fury could have got robbed. He didn't go for it enough for me. Makes me think Haye could nick a boring fight against him. He still won though.
I think most folk would have felt slightly violated if Wlad got that decision last night but after the initial shock would've just thought 'feckin Germany'

Re: Was Fury exposed a bit?

Posted: 29 Nov 2015, 10:53
by keithmoonhangover
Horse wrote:
TheLeprechaun wrote:would we all have been shocked if Wlad got the decision? Wlad was favourite with the bookies just before the cards were announced
This is boxing, of course I wouldn't have been surprised if Wladimir had won that via robbery.

Fury was hardly exposed though, was he? Let's not be daft here.
I'm with you Horse. Fury was far from exposed. He did what he had to do to win. He found a way to win. He did. Exposed my arse.

Re: Was Fury exposed a bit?

Posted: 29 Nov 2015, 10:53
by Stuarty
Arse raped? Yes. Surprised? No.

Re: Was Fury exposed a bit?

Posted: 29 Nov 2015, 11:27
by Coco
Fury is the first born and bred Brit to be the no 1 heavyweight since Bob Fitzsimmons.

Re: Was Fury exposed a bit?

Posted: 29 Nov 2015, 11:31
by Tuan_Jim
Coco wrote:Fury is the first born and bred Brit to be the no 1 heavyweight since Bob Fitzsimmons.
Fitzsimmons grew up in New Zealand, where he learned to fight. Similar to how Lewis grew up in Canada, where he trained to fight. Fury could be said to be our first true world heavyweight champion.

Re: Was Fury exposed a bit?

Posted: 29 Nov 2015, 11:37
by dookus
Tuan_Jim wrote:
Coco wrote:Fury is the first born and bred Brit to be the no 1 heavyweight since Bob Fitzsimmons.
Fitzsimmons grew up in New Zealand, where he learned to fight. Similar to how Lewis grew up in Canada, where he trained to fight. Fury could be said to be our first true world heavyweight champion.
what about Bruno and haye

Re: Was Fury exposed a bit?

Posted: 29 Nov 2015, 11:39
by Tuan_Jim
When Bruno was champ Foreman was lineal and Bowe considered the man. When Haye was champ Klit was considered the man.

Re: Was Fury exposed a bit?

Posted: 29 Nov 2015, 11:41
by stevedoc
Tuan_Jim wrote:When Bruno was champ Foreman was lineal and Bowe considered the man. When Haye was champ Klit was considered the man.
Bruno beat McCall who beat lewis who was the man

Re: Was Fury exposed a bit?

Posted: 29 Nov 2015, 11:44
by Tuan_Jim
stevedoc wrote:
Tuan_Jim wrote:When Bruno was champ Foreman was lineal and Bowe considered the man. When Haye was champ Klit was considered the man.
Bruno beat McCall who beat lewis who was the man
Your memory is off. Lewis was not recognised as the man in 94 and certainly not in 95.

Re: Was Fury exposed a bit?

Posted: 29 Nov 2015, 11:48
by stevedoc
Tuan_Jim wrote:
stevedoc wrote:
Tuan_Jim wrote:When Bruno was champ Foreman was lineal and Bowe considered the man. When Haye was champ Klit was considered the man.
Bruno beat McCall who beat lewis who was the man
Your memory is off. Lewis was not recognised as the man in 94 and certainly not in 95.
maybe :)

Re: Was Fury exposed a bit?

Posted: 29 Nov 2015, 11:51
by SNG
Exposed? I thought Fury made it look easy. I've said for a long time on here that I don't rate Wlad all that highly and that he's a lot of natural advantages over his opposition, but I didn't think Fury was the man to beat him but I'm happy to be wrong. To think Fury was somewhat exposed is bizarre to me, I was thoroughly impressed with his game plan and his execution of it, he went to a fighters backyard and fought him in a way where he didn't let the very experience champion settle into his usual game plan and kept him so apprehensive he barely threw his main weapon, that to me is anything other than exposed, it was excellent.

Re: Was Fury exposed a bit?

Posted: 29 Nov 2015, 11:58
by keithmoonhangover
Tuan_Jim wrote:
Coco wrote:Fury is the first born and bred Brit to be the no 1 heavyweight since Bob Fitzsimmons.
Fitzsimmons grew up in New Zealand, where he learned to fight. Similar to how Lewis grew up in Canada, where he trained to fight. Fury could be said to be our first true world heavyweight champion.
Doesn't Fury claim to be born in Ireland?

Re: Was Fury exposed a bit?

Posted: 29 Nov 2015, 12:08
by Aaronide_ger
Fury almost KNOCKED OUT Klitschko in the 11th round.. Give the guy credit.. WHAT ELSE IS HE SUPPOSED TO DO?

Re: Was Fury exposed a bit?

Posted: 29 Nov 2015, 12:17
by Tuan_Jim
keithmoonhangover wrote:
Tuan_Jim wrote:
Coco wrote:Fury is the first born and bred Brit to be the no 1 heavyweight since Bob Fitzsimmons.
Fitzsimmons grew up in New Zealand, where he learned to fight. Similar to how Lewis grew up in Canada, where he trained to fight. Fury could be said to be our first true world heavyweight champion.
Doesn't Fury claim to be born in Ireland?
Interesting, didn't know that. If that's the case then we might have to wait another century.

Re: Was Fury exposed a bit?

Posted: 29 Nov 2015, 12:17
by Dixonian
TheLeprechaun wrote:would we all have been shocked if Wlad got the decision? Wlad was favourite with the bookies just before the cards were announced. not saying he deserved it but fury could have got robbed. He didn't go for it enough for me. Makes me think Haye could nick a boring fight against him. He still won though.
I agree. It was a horrible, horrible fight. Easily the worst heavyweight title fight I've ever seen.

Here's the thing... Wlad was there for the taking but Fury showed little inclination to get a decisive win.

People are talking about this as a great victory, but this was two big lumps afraid of letting their hands go for 12 rounds of inaction. Haye said after two rounds that Wlad was shot and he was right. Fury lambasted Haye's performance against Wlad, but here was Fury against a declined version of that same fighter, trying to fiddle his way to victory on the backfoot. Sure, he got the win. But he left a lot to chance.

I'm surprised at the lack of negative comments regarding this fight. It was a dismal advert for heavyweight boxing.

Re: Was Fury exposed a bit?

Posted: 29 Nov 2015, 12:32
by keithmoonhangover
Tuan_Jim wrote:
keithmoonhangover wrote:
Tuan_Jim wrote: Fitzsimmons grew up in New Zealand, where he learned to fight. Similar to how Lewis grew up in Canada, where he trained to fight. Fury could be said to be our first true world heavyweight champion.
Doesn't Fury claim to be born in Ireland?
Interesting, didn't know that. If that's the case then we might have to wait another century.
I'm claiming him Lord Jim. :TU:

It's Ruby Robert (born here, never fought here), Lennox (born here, fought here) and now Fury (maybe born here, lives and fights here). That's the list. Bruno, Hide et al are pretenders.