Fury v wilder

[South hams hunter 8,921]

2 hours ago, gnasher16 said:

 oh for f**k sake 

Well in that case im just watching Lee Selby on this Eubank card......Selby the best featherweight since Willie Pep ? 

 

Max has said ita a fact that he is the best boxer, not hitter but most technical since Ali. 

[Saltmoon 2,208]

Watching some clips on fury saying hes the big dog the one to beat and they all have to come to him on espn BUT he has no feckin belts so in my mind he's not the big dog at all it's aj and wilder they have the belts 

[ryaldinhio 4,519]

8 hours ago, Saltmoon said:

Watching some clips on fury saying hes the big dog the one to beat and they all have to come to him on espn BUT he has no feckin belts so in my mind he's not the big dog at all it's aj and wilder they have the belts 

Exactly

Until he takes the belts back he has nothing other than a loud mouth to try and talk people into the ring. I'm not sure why anyone would want to risk fighting him other than reputation so if that really is his attitude he could be struggling. Maybe for the money? But let's be right none of them are short of a few quid so IMO the only reason would be bragging rights.

[South hams hunter 8,921]

10 hours ago, maxhardcore said:

Munter your still are right boring fooker

 

Tyson was a quitter When the going got  tough .

Very good when things were going his way but he couldn't dig deep when it was layed down on him.

But that's just my opinion.

Just saying what you said and guessing your on about tyson fury? 

[TOMO 26,071]

15 hours ago, gnasher16 said:

Whoever it is saying Tyson is the best fighter since Ali i couldnt disagree more.....Ali was a great fighter because he found ways to win.....every time Tyson met resistance he lost,simple as that !....id put Holyfield,Lewis possibly even Bowe at his best all above Tyson.

 

max thinks fury is the best boxer since ali......my response to that was in my opinion iron mike....holyfield and lewis were all better boxers  than fury.....

that's were all this came from.....just got a bit confusing with Tyson fury and mike Tyson

[gnasher16 30,063]

14 hours ago, South hams hunter said:

Max has said ita a fact that he is the best boxer, not hitter but most technical since Ali. 

Im sure he was only mucking about ....as Lencharrster said its a long running joke apparently.

Anyway theres nothing technical about basic tap and run its how you score points in the amateurs and at nearly 7 foot tall its hard to beat....fortunately in the pros you,ve got to make a dent ....the judging in the pros isnt about touching your opponent with a scoring shot its about impacting your opponent 1 solid left hook to the body can score higher with judges than 10 ineffective scoring jabs its what sets apart pro and amateur boxing.

Besides which for pure technical ability id put Mike Tyson close to the top literally every punch he threw was textbook perfect and technically correct his short narrow hooks then the way he shifted weight to throw the uppercut was technically beautiful he mastered complex manouvers into a very fluid technique the way he implemented angles and moved forward perfectly balanced with speed to sit on his punches was pure boxing technique.....Holyfield at his best had every punch in the book....Riddick Bowe for a brief time had as good fundamental skills as anybody.....James Toney at 5 ft 9 and up from middleweight on cheeseburgers alone had tremendous skills,he had no right fighting at heavyweight he should of been killed but was so technically devastating he could hang with them,can you imagine a 5 ft 9 Fury having to share a ring with Toney it would be a complete mismatch.

 

 

[gnasher16 30,063]

1 hour ago, TOMO said:

 

max thinks fury is the best boxer since ali......my response to that was in my opinion iron mike....holyfield and lewis were all better boxers  than fury.....

that's were all this came from.....just got a bit confusing with Tyson fury and mike Tyson

Sounds like a bit of a bizarre conversation to me.

[shaaark 10,721]

4 minutes ago, gnasher16 said:

Im sure he was only mucking about ....as Lencharrster said its a long running joke apparently.

Anyway theres nothing technical about basic tap and run its how you score points in the amateurs and at nearly 7 foot tall its hard to beat....fortunately in the pros you,ve got to make a dent ....the judging in the pros isnt about touching your opponent with a scoring shot its about impacting your opponent 1 solid left hook to the body can score higher with judges than 10 ineffective scoring jabs its what sets apart pro and amateur boxing.

Besides which for pure technical ability id put Mike Tyson close to the top literally every punch he threw was textbook perfect and technically correct his short narrow hooks then the way he shifted weight to throw the uppercut was technically beautiful he mastered complex manouvers into a very fluid technique the way he implemented angles and moved forward perfectly balanced with speed to sit on his punches was pure boxing technique.....Holyfield at his best had every punch in the book....Riddick Bowe for a brief time had as good fundamental skills as anybody.....James Toney at 5 ft 9 and up from middleweight on cheeseburgers alone had tremendous skills,he had no right fighting at heavyweight he should of been killed but was so technically devastating he could hang with them,can you imagine a 5 ft 9 Fury having to share a ring with Toney it would be a complete mismatch.

 

 

In simple terms gnash, mike tyson would've completely buckled tyson fury before the second round was over 

[Billy b 762]

3 minutes ago, gnasher16 said:

Im sure he was only mucking about ....as Lencharrster said its a long running joke apparently.

Anyway theres nothing technical about basic tap and run its how you score points in the amateurs and at nearly 7 foot tall its hard to beat....fortunately in the pros you,ve got to make a dent ....the judging in the pros isnt about touching your opponent with a scoring shot its about impacting your opponent 1 solid left hook to the body can score higher with judges than 10 ineffective scoring jabs its what sets apart pro and amateur boxing.

Besides which for pure technical ability id put Mike Tyson close to the top literally every punch he threw was textbook perfect and technically correct his short narrow hooks then the way he shifted weight to throw the uppercut was technically beautiful he mastered complex manouvers into a very fluid technique the way he implemented angles and moved forward perfectly balanced with speed to sit on his punches was pure boxing technique.....Holyfield at his best had every punch in the book....Riddick Bowe for a brief time had as good fundamental skills as anybody.....James Toney at 5 ft 9 and up from middleweight on cheeseburgers alone had tremendous skills,he had no right fighting at heavyweight he should of been killed but was so technically devastating he could hang with them,can you imagine a 5 ft 9 Fury having to share a ring with Toney it would be a complete mismatch.

 

 

One of favourite fighters is James ToneyDefensively & technically brilliant,brilliant fighter to watch go to work 

[gnasher16 30,063]

29 minutes ago, shaaark said:

In simple terms gnash, mike tyson would've completely buckled tyson fury before the second round was over 

I wouldnt disagree......but....if he did manage to take Tyson a few rounds he would probably beat him....im of the opinion that Mike Tysons ability early on was so great that his fighting heart never got tested......and then like i say every time he met resistance and his fighting heart was tested....he simply didnt have it.

[shaaark 10,721]

26 minutes ago, gnasher16 said:

I wouldnt disagree......but....if he did manage to take Tyson a few rounds he would probably beat him....im of the opinion that Mike Tysons ability early on was so great that his fighting heart never got tested......and then like i say every time he met resistance and his fighting heart was tested....he simply didnt have it.

A pre don king mike tyson was a completely different animal. The drugs etc etc ruined him. Before all that bollox he was practically invincible in the ring. No-one could live with him

[gnasher16 30,063]

2 hours ago, shaaark said:

A pre don king mike tyson was a completely different animal. The drugs etc etc ruined him. Before all that bollox he was practically invincible in the ring. No-one could live with him

Oh no your not one of them are you ....ive had this discussion a lot over the years and it always comes back to the same excuses.....look,Tyson was a great puncher,he was a great intimidator,he was a great finisher..........but he wasnt a great fighter.

The reason he looked invincible early in his career was because nobody fought him back he had guys so intimidated the fights were like exhibitions......every opponent that wasnt intimidated and fought him back hard he lost to.

[Billy b 762]

I'd be talking s**t if I said I didn't admire mike Tyson & think he had bundles of talent & was a very good boxer,I enjoy his fights,I enjoy his training vids & I think he is brilliant to watch

Tyson had plenty of skills to his name but the one area where he didn't "have it" was in the mind,he doubted himself plenty of times coming up & as a pro when up against it crumbled 

formidable physical abilities thogh,if only he was as headstrong as he was in other areas,

just proves it that in fighting & in life in general,the most important attribute is strength of the mind,without it your limited as to what you can achieve 

[MickC 1,825]

5 hours ago, Billy b said:

One of favourite fighters is James ToneyDefensively & technically brilliant,brilliant fighter to watch go to work 

It just shows how good a prime Jones was as he literally schooled Toney when they fought, it was almost a shut out. Pre Heavyweight Jones was unbeatable imo, aside from the disqualification loss to Griffin that took his unbeaten record which was harsh.

[shaaark 10,721]

2 hours ago, gnasher16 said:

Oh no your not one of them are you ....ive had this discussion a lot over the years and it always comes back to the same excuses.....look,Tyson was a great puncher,he was a great intimidator,he was a great finisher..........but he wasnt a great fighter.

The reason he looked invincible early in his career was because nobody fought him back he had guys so intimidated the fights were like exhibitions......every opponent that wasnt intimidated and fought him back hard he lost to.

No I'm not one of them lol. Every boxer/fighter has limitations. And just for example,  would you say lennox lewis beat mike tyson, regardless of the result?