Tyson Fury In 1900?

hed maul most of em.

 

Wlad has been in tip top shape his entire boxing career. Sullivan was a fat drunken mic who wouldn't fight black fighters and lost to a teeny tiny LHW in Corbett.

If he's laughing it's because he's drunk. Once again.

 

Anyone who thinks Fury is a very good fighter has no idea what being a good fighter is all about. One of the most amateurish hwts I have ever watched fight for the hwt championship. One of the few times in 40 years watching top hwts fight that I was alternatively laughing and shaking my head at a challengers ineptitude.

 

As he scored a shutout win over an all-time great. :deal

The Fury-Klitschko fight was boring because it was so one-sided and Klitschko couldn't do anything because Fury took his jab away with his own jab and movement.

Name some heavyweights from the early 1900s who you'd pick over Fury?

Tommy Burns? Marvin Hart? Gunner Moir?

Please. :roll:

 

I would love that.

 

Fury is an amateur. Your emphasis on size ignores his lack of ability. He is an awkward joke of a fighter. He would be a joke of a fighter at any size and any weight. He has one decent win and you want to make him out to be on par with proven ATG hwt champions. I will bet you ten years from now Furys name will be largely forgotten. They will still be talking about the greatness of Johnson 50 years from now as they are today. On another note you are very easily impressed. Too easily. Those experienced with this sport realize it's important to look at fighters with a cautious eye.

 

Then it should be easy for you to name all the 1900-era heavyweights you'd pick to beat him.

Go right ahead.

Go on record.:deal

NAME THEM ALL. Can't wait to read your list. :hi:

 

steve cunningham would be a top fighter back in that era against men his own size or smaller. he knocked fury down hard, but was mauled in the end.

 

You are very inexperienced. Your questions reek of having no background knowledge of the sports history.

Here is an experienced thought........don't be so much a fan that you jump at every fighter you like to rate them as a great. Fury is so far removed from the greats that came before him it's not debatable. He is a wreck, an awkward amateur who has not proven himself in any way shape or form. You don't put unproven amateurs in the ring for a twenty round battle with an ATG animal like Jeffries.

 

It's not a difficult question.

Name the fighters from the early 1900s you'd pick over Tyson Fury?

I've been following boxing for as long as you or longer (since 1975).

Fury is so "inept" according to you, how difficult can it be for you to tell us some heavyweights you'd take over him?

Go right ahead. You don't have to hide the fact that you won't name anyone by trying to insult me.

Name some 1900s heavyweights and why you'd take them over Fury.

 

The fighters in that era with the moniker "Giant" - like Gus Ruhlin - were smaller than Steve Cunningham.

Steve Cunningham is bigger than most 70s heavyweights.

 

Jeffries would knock Fury clean out. If the soft hitting Cunningham can floor him then Jeffries would murder him.

 

Would Jeffries also outpoint him? It's difficult to win if you can only win by knockout.

I think Jeffries "could" knock him out, too. Given the terrible beatings Jeffries suffered at the hands of Fitz and Corbett ... before he used his power to overcome them ... I also think with Fury's jab, and clubbing right, the fact that he is much larger than Jeffries (weight, height, reach) and with Fury's movement ...

That if Fury started pounding Jeffries like Corbett and Fitz did, and took fewer shots than they did because he is so much bigger and can fight on the outside like they couldn't ...

That "when" Jeffries fell behind against Fury ... he "wouldn't" be able to use his advantage in size (which he wouldn't have) to overpower Fury like he did to Fitz and Corbett.

"When" Jeffries fell behind against Fury (like he did against Fitz and Corbett) ... I think he'd stay behind. Jeffries might even get stopped before the 20th.

Jeffries wasn't outpointing 6'9" 245-pound movers who jabbed their way to decisions in 1900.

But, fine, if you think Jeffries wins by KO, good. I think that's "the only" way Jeffries could win ... while Fury could win by decision or stoppage.

And ... apparently ... Jeffries is the only heavyweight people are bringing up ... so I guess you all feel Fury beats everyone else?

So, if Jeffries "doesn't" KO Fury ... looks like the consensus is Fury beats Jeffries and EVERYONE else.

Like I said.:good