BoxRec

so many times ive heard on this board "he is the #1 in his division, because he is the official champion", "i favour him because he is the champion"

the best example right now is fury. a unathletic, x legged, slow b level heavyweight. the only advantage he has is being a giant. but compared too guys like josh or ortiz he is technicly limited, athleticly limited, just inferior, but because he beat an old past prime at the end of his career wlad, than he must be #1 like martin had to be a good boxer, cause he was champion. martin was not even b level.

quality > title

I agree with your post in general - just because one guy has a belt around his waist doesn't make him any better than another, although that said, being the man who beat the man does make you the champion. Fury may or may not be the best heavyweight in the world, but he is the legitimate heavyweight champion.

As for your assessment of Fury, I think you're selling him a bit short - to say that his being a giant is his only advantage is a huge exaggeration. For a heavyweight, Fury has fast hands and good footspeed and movement. For such a tall man he has good head movement too, plus he makes good use of feints and has a good boxing brain in general. While his chin is average, he has shown good heart and survival skills when hurt. These things in combination with his size make him a handful for any heavyweight today.

Martin, I will agree, was very poor for someone holding a championship belt.

jezzamundo wrote:I agree with your post in general - just because one guy has a belt around his waist doesn't make him any better than another, although that said, being the man who beat the man does make you the champion. Fury may or may not be the best heavyweight in the world, but he is the legitimate heavyweight champion.

As for your assessment of Fury, I think you're selling him a bit short - to say that his being a giant is his only advantage is a huge exaggeration. For a heavyweight, Fury has fast hands and good footspeed and movement. For such a tall man he has good head movement too, plus he makes good use of feints and has a good boxing brain in general. While his chin is average, he has shown good heart and survival skills when hurt. These things in combination with his size make him a handful for any heavyweight today.

Martin, I will agree, was very poor for someone holding a championship belt.

i was a bit harsh on fury, just wanted get my int accross.

there are just 3 heavyweights better than fury. therefore fury isnt the real champ to me, even so he beat wlad.

to me, the real champ is always the best boxer in his division, #1 in the world. sadly in most division we wont never find out, we live in "the pussy era" where the best dont face the best. so trully argueing who is #1 realy doesnt mean much, but surely not who has an wbc title or what not is the very best, thats for sure.

So a champ that beat noone in a lucky fight for a vacant title, proves being the man to beat the man is worthless. Nice one.

Chepppaaa wrote:

jezzamundo wrote:I agree with your post in general - just because one guy has a belt around his waist doesn't make him any better than another, although that said, being the man who beat the man does make you the champion. Fury may or may not be the best heavyweight in the world, but he is the legitimate heavyweight champion.

As for your assessment of Fury, I think you're selling him a bit short - to say that his being a giant is his only advantage is a huge exaggeration. For a heavyweight, Fury has fast hands and good footspeed and movement. For such a tall man he has good head movement too, plus he makes good use of feints and has a good boxing brain in general. While his chin is average, he has shown good heart and survival skills when hurt. These things in combination with his size make him a handful for any heavyweight today.

Martin, I will agree, was very poor for someone holding a championship belt.

i was a bit harsh on fury, just wanted get my int accross.

there are just 3 heavyweights better than fury. therefore fury isnt the real champ to me, even so he beat wlad.

to me, the real champ is always the best boxer in his division, #1 in the world. sadly in most division we wont never find out, we live in "the pussy era" where the best dont face the best. so trully argueing who is #1 realy doesnt mean much, but surely not who has an wbc title or what not is the very best, thats for sure.

To be the champ you have to beat the champ - it's the way it has always been and the way it always should be. I agree with you about the best not fighting the best in this era though, which is a shame. Fury may not be the best heavyweight today but no one has yet beaten him and proven that to be the case, so he's the legitimate heavyweight champion. It's not so clear cut in other divisions - take middleweight for example - Martinez was the champ, Cotto beat him, Canelo beat him, but all the time GGG was destroying solid B level middleweights and making it look easy. Canelo is the lineal middleweight champion, but I have a very hard time thinking of him as the champ seeing as he's never fought at the full weight limit and the guy he beat for the title also refused to fight at the full weight limit. To be GGG is the clear #1 middleweight and a multiple beltholder, but I still can't call him THE middleweight champion because he hasn't beaten the guy who beat the guy.

jezzamundo wrote:

Chepppaaa wrote:

jezzamundo wrote:I agree with your post in general - just because one guy has a belt around his waist doesn't make him any better than another, although that said, being the man who beat the man does make you the champion. Fury may or may not be the best heavyweight in the world, but he is the legitimate heavyweight champion.

As for your assessment of Fury, I think you're selling him a bit short - to say that his being a giant is his only advantage is a huge exaggeration. For a heavyweight, Fury has fast hands and good footspeed and movement. For such a tall man he has good head movement too, plus he makes good use of feints and has a good boxing brain in general. While his chin is average, he has shown good heart and survival skills when hurt. These things in combination with his size make him a handful for any heavyweight today.

Martin, I will agree, was very poor for someone holding a championship belt.

i was a bit harsh on fury, just wanted get my int accross.

there are just 3 heavyweights better than fury. therefore fury isnt the real champ to me, even so he beat wlad.

to me, the real champ is always the best boxer in his division, #1 in the world. sadly in most division we wont never find out, we live in "the pussy era" where the best dont face the best. so trully argueing who is #1 realy doesnt mean much, but surely not who has an wbc title or what not is the very best, thats for sure.

To be the champ you have to beat the champ - it's the way it has always been and the way it always should be. I agree with you about the best not fighting the best in this era though, which is a shame. Fury may not be the best heavyweight today but no one has yet beaten him and proven that to be the case, so he's the legitimate heavyweight champion. It's not so clear cut in other divisions - take middleweight for example - Martinez was the champ, Cotto beat him, Canelo beat him, but all the time GGG was destroying solid B level middleweights and making it look easy. Canelo is the lineal middleweight champion, but I have a very hard time thinking of him as the champ seeing as he's never fought at the full weight limit and the guy he beat for the title also refused to fight at the full weight limit. To be GGG is the clear #1 middleweight and a multiple beltholder, but I still can't call him THE middleweight champion because he hasn't beaten the guy who beat the guy.

jezza that exactly the point.

so canelo is the champion, but you know as much as i know, that ggg is superior, so why than should canelo be better or i why should i rate him higher, when i know ggg is better and the true champion? makes no sense

is like saying, before the fight "i rate martin higher than josh, cause martin is the champion", its so stupid, to me martin wa a chubby limited puncher and josh the clear better boxer, hell no i will rate martin higher than josh.

at the end, what it comes down to is quality and quality of a boxer means more than title and who has the best quality is the real champion. all this ibf, wbc, wba dont mean nothing.

I'm not commenting on Fury any more, he proved me wrong before with his Klitschko fight and TBH I do rate him very high now.

Martin must surely be the worst heavyweight title holder of all time, I can't think of a more inept and pathetic excuse for a title holder. He lacked just about every quality a champ needs, belief, tenacity, technique, you name it, he didn't have it.

[quote="Chepppaaa"]so many times ive heard on this board "he is the #1 in his division, because he is the official champion", "i favour him because he is the champion"

the best example right now is fury. a unathletic, x legged, slow b level heavyweight. the only advantage he has is being a giant. but compared too guys like josh or ortiz he is technicly limited, athleticly limited, just inferior, but because he beat an old past prime at the end of his career wlad, than he must be #1 like martin had to be a good boxer, cause he was champion. martin was not even b level.



Tyson Fury is actually a very good boxer with fast hands. The late Emanuel Steward said that he was something special and that one day he would become a heavyweight champion. You got it all wrong on Fury. He's legit.

Terrible thread from a terrible poster.

TooEasy12 wrote:

Chepppaaa wrote:so many times ive heard on this board "he is the #1 in his division, because he is the official champion", "i favour him because he is the champion"

the best example right now is fury. a unathletic, x legged, slow b level heavyweight. the only advantage he has is being a giant. but compared too guys like josh or ortiz he is technicly limited, athleticly limited, just inferior, but because he beat an old past prime at the end of his career wlad, than he must be #1 like martin had to be a good boxer, cause he was champion. martin was not even b level.



Tyson Fury is actually a very good boxer with fast hands. The late Emanuel Steward said that he was something special and that one day he would become a heavyweight champion. You got it all wrong on Fury. He's legit.

Whatever his technical limitations, he may prove very hard to beat.

..I'm not a fan of blanket statements..you must look into each case individually..

Horse wrote:Terrible thread from a terrible poster.

you just butthurt cause your lists suck, be mad at yourself, not at me.

Chepppaaa wrote:

Horse wrote:Terrible thread from a terrible poster.

you just butthurt cause your lists suck, be mad at yourself, not at me.

He's not wrong. The idea that Fury isn't the 'real' champion because you THINK there are 3 better HW's is nonsense.

Fury is THE champion. He has ducked no-one, he fought and beat the undisputed no.1 HW. Not one other HW can match that, irrespective of how good you THINK they may be.

Chepppaaa wrote:

Horse wrote:Terrible thread from a terrible poster.

you just butthurt cause your lists suck, be mad at yourself, not at me.

There will always be some disagreements, but Horse's lists are among the more well thought out and, in my opinion, accurate, that we see on this forum and I always look forward to seeing them.

Taki... wrote:

Chepppaaa wrote:

Horse wrote:Terrible thread from a terrible poster.

you just butthurt cause your lists suck, be mad at yourself, not at me.

He's not wrong. The idea that Fury isn't the 'real' champion because you THINK there are 3 better HW's is nonsense.

Fury is THE champion. He has ducked no-one, he fought and beat the undisputed no.1 HW. Not one other HW can match that, irrespective of how good you THINK they may be.

I'm generally in agreement - Fury is the heavyweight champion, no question. It's not so clear cut in other divisions - for instance, I have a hard time believing that Canelo is the middleweight champion seeing as he's never fought at the weight and seems to be refusing to do so. So while I agree that the man who beat the man is the legitimate champion, I agree with Chepppaaa (wow, I never thought I'd say that) that the title champion means less these days than it used to, even when we are talking about the lineal champ.

sorry horse, i was a bit harsh with you. i like your lists, they are good.

The idea that anybody out there is superior to Fury right now, is ridiculous. There's not another single fighter holds a candle to his achievement in winning against Wlad, no matter how poor a fight it was.

The only man likely to overtake him is Wlad, if he wins a rematch.

The rest are playing catchup, and if Fury wins the rematch, someone will have to beat him to dethrone him from the top spot.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:The idea that anybody out there is superior to Fury right now, is ridiculous. There's not another single fighter holds a candle to his achievement in winning against Wlad, no matter how poor a fight it was.

The only man likely to overtake him is Wlad, if he wins a rematch.

The rest are playing catchup, and if Fury wins the rematch, someone will have to beat him to dethrone him from the top spot.

..like it or not, but it's as simple as that...

Joshua has got to be the most spoon fed heavyweight among the "elites" I didn't know Britain was so cheap, and so desparate in need to have a "proper champion" instead of accepting Tyson Fury (gypsy) as their undisputed/lineal title holder. I am hoping, Fury beats Klitschko rather decisively in the rematch and then gets Joshua at the end of the year and shows the world how big of a nonsense he is. It all screams of Mike Tyson vs Tyrell Biggs back in the day.... the villain Tyson and the amateur standout, the popular "proper" heavyweight and the street thug.... a manufactured heavyweight versus the real deal.

HomicideHenry wrote:Joshua has got to be the most spoon fed heavyweight among the "elites" I didn't know Britain was so cheap, and so desparate in need to have a "proper champion" instead of accepting Tyson Fury (gypsy) as their undisputed/lineal title holder. I am hoping, Fury beats Klitschko rather decisively in the rematch and then gets Joshua at the end of the year and shows the world how big of a nonsense he is. It all screams of Mike Tyson vs Tyrell Biggs back in the day.... the villain Tyson and the amateur standout, the popular "proper" heavyweight and the street thug.... a manufactured heavyweight versus the real deal.

If Fury had been on Sky from the get go and had Ed's money behind him, he'd be massive now.

HomicideHenry wrote:Joshua has got to be the most spoon fed heavyweight among the "elites" I didn't know Britain was so cheap, and so desparate in need to have a "proper champion" instead of accepting Tyson Fury (gypsy) as their undisputed/lineal title holder. I am hoping, Fury beats Klitschko rather decisively in the rematch and then gets Joshua at the end of the year and shows the world how big of a nonsense he is. It all screams of Mike Tyson vs Tyrell Biggs back in the day.... the villain Tyson and the amateur standout, the popular "proper" heavyweight and the street thug.... a manufactured heavyweight versus the real deal.

Getting dazzled by the belt? The hype?
If there had been no belt on the line Martin would have been a good match up for Joshua -- Just as a point of comparison, Tyson's 16th fight was David Jaco.
I doubt there are too many prospects who aren't still being 'spoon fed' in their 16th fight.
And who is suggesting Fury isn't the 'proper' champion? Joshua has a belt. When it comes time to negotiate fights that's a pretty decent chip to have in your back pocket, irrespective of whether it's 'meaningless'. Eddie Hearn isn't stupid, he knows Joshua will get a bigger slice of the pie with the IBF title on board.
Tyson/Biggs? You must be on something if you believe there are any kind of parallels to be drawn there. Fury is a pantomime villain, he's just playing the game -- nothing but complimentary to Joshua... right up until a possible fight appears on the horizon.
IF the public, or anyone else, view Fury as a villain it's not because he's a gypsy or a traveller, it's because that is an image he has propagated.
Oh and what constitutes a 'manufactured heavyweight'?

BitPlayer wrote:So a champ that beat noone in a lucky fight for a vacant title, proves being the man to beat the man is worthless. Nice one.

You saved me posting a long angry rant, by summing that up in one sentence!