The Fury McDermott chronicles

Navy'll do that to you

 

The loss to John McDermott doesn’t hurt Furys legacy as he clearly didn’t properly prepare for the first fight.

However to give McDermott his due respect it is worth acknowledging that he won that first fight fair and square and was robbed. I recall scoring it 7-3 in his favour.

 

wlad was 25 and had already lost to purrity

 

Darren Sutherland RIP. No time for Maloney.

 

Fury improves in all his rematches. Sign of a student of the game.

 

Yes the commentary was typical biased nonsense, but McDoughnut still beat that version of Fury even if you mute it. Fury had a ton of early fights where he looked vulnerable and lacked the incredible ring presence he would later develop. It's not a huge knock on his resume either way, as early learning fights are part of the game for any fighter.

USS Cunningham is one of my most respected fighters of recent years, but yeah he comes across as a salty seaman sometimes. He was getting broken down by Fury and the solid gut punch that doubled him up against the ropes and laid him open to the uppercut were well on the way to finishing Steve before the hit and hold clubbing right finished the job.

Wallin didn't really beat Fury, but the cut was bad enough that the fight could have been stopped at any point in the second half of the fight. Again, not a huge point either way, though it would obviously have given Wilder a chance to duck the rematch, so I'm glad it didn't happen.

 

rip. Talented guy

 

fury had no backing, no Olympic pedigree, had to go with fat mick as no promoter would touch him and he still managed to win everything possible in his weight class.

in 31 fights, he won more belts than wlad. And beat fury beat him. Wlad was a good boxer, beat some names but he does not have the skill of fury.

Imagine wlad with fury’s punching power. Can’t see him going too far. But he was blessed and will go down as one of the hardest punchers ever.

 

^

Wladimir, I take it?

 

That statement is a country mile's worth of inaccurate. Fury had been a professional for significantly less than a year the first time he fought McDermott, and he rematched him eighteen months into his pro career. Those are facts.

So Eggman is correct, Tyson Fury, at 21, with a very modest amateur background of 35 amateur bouts, was a baby at the time of meeting John McDermott.

Those would typically be guys with vastly more amateur experience and politically maneuvered guys who were fortunate enough to not have to wait around for their shot.

'Who won a title quicker' isn't so compelling a criterion/discussion, to be honest. I'm more interested in the 'who is better/more skilled/greater' discussion you just invited.

Whichever man is greater is something we can properly evaluate after both have retired, but Fury is certainly now well on the way to definitively eclipsing Wlad in that category (some would have it that he already has, but I'm willing to wait 'til he's finished his work).

As for who is the overall better/more skilled fighter in a H2H sense, I'll get to that further down this post.

This is also inaccurate information. Haye had fought 10 pro bouts and boxed 20 pro rounds when he faced Carl Thompson (plus an amateur career of 96 bouts), compared to Fury's 7 pro bouts and 16 pro rounds at the time of facing McDermott (plus an amateur career of 35 bouts).

I could ask what David Haye's defeat to Carl Thompson has to do with the price of cannoli, but I *think* you're trying to suggest that Haye's failure to navigate Thompson can be mitigated by his inexperience (this part is fair enough), while Fury's struggle with McDermott comes down to some kind of innate deficiency? Your point, as far as it can be interpreted, is disprovable not just on account of the fact that Tyson Fury went on to become a legitimate world's champion, but on account of the fact that you are offering inaccurate data, due either to ignorance or wilful misrepresentation.

This is the pro game. We've already established that Fury did not have an extensive amateur background. And it's worth noting that there are fighters considered to be above or around Wlad in the ATG HW pantheon who never won an Olympic gold medal.

Winning a Gold medal in the Olympics does nothing for your chance of cracking an ATG heavyweights list. You have to turn over and achieve things in the professional game. That medal he won for winning three-round bouts in headguard and vest is a very nice thing to have, but he wouldn't have a consensus Top 20-15 ATG heavyweight placing if he'd never turned over and established a new lineage after Lennox Lewis. The amateur ranks serve as a breeding ground, they are not the ultimate litmus test.

Also, Wlad was the child of diplomatic and military dignitaries and the benificiary of a Soviet system which prized young athletic talent, picking out the best for its sporting academies. There's nothing wrong with that, of course; different guys have different paths in life.

You're basically putting Fury down for having been less privileged than Wlad. Fury did not have the support of a system such as the one that guided Wlad to Olympic glory. He did not have a 140 bout amateur career. He was not groomed for boxing – at least not by any party whose name wasn't Fury.

Which was Eggman's point, of course.

Well, Wladimir was a paper titlist the first time. He eventually established a new lineage during his second title run.

Fury is the lineal king, the man who beat the man, and he hasn't lost the status yet. In any substantive sense, Deontay Wilder was the challenger in their bout, not Tyson Fury. Fury's championship claim was based on dethroning reigning lineal king Klitschko, while Wilder's was based on winning a shady sanctioning body's paper title from another contender and holding onto it for 4-5 years (an achievement I don't sniff at per se). See how this works? The best thing the WBC belt does for Fury is look pretty around his waist. Fury, on the other hand, does plenty for the credibility of the WBC belt.

In the truest sense, Fury is a one-time world's champion, as is Wlad. Except that Fury actually beat the man, whereas Wlad's lineage was established in the absence of a reigning man, as is the custom when a previous lineal king abdicates instead of losing his status in the ring.

This 'belts' business is whatever. There are four of them. They mean little in and of themselves. Let's deal with solidified status.

Are we really throwing these minor trinkets into the mix?

 

^ Continued from above...

Which of Klitschko's defences is worth anything close to a win over a reigning Wladimir Klitschko? How many of them do you have to stack end to end before their combined substance begins to weigh as heavily? As the ultimate creditability of Klitschko's reign hinges on its longevity (amid middling competition), his value to Fury could be said to be more than the sum of those defences, with the matter of however one judges the overall extent of Wlad's fighting capabilities being an additional factor.

When did Wlad wrest a championship from one who had comparable heavyweight credentials to those he built between 2006 and 2015?

Which of Klitschko's defences is worth a comprehensive destruction of an undefeated KO artist like Wilder?

It can be argued that the significance of Fury's defining moments as a championship fighter overrides Wlad's lengthy dominance of a less competitive era. And Fury still has work ahead of him.

These are just sour, sour grapes.

The fact that Fury won clear official verdicts on Wladimir's turf alone is significant evidence of a deserving winner. In light of his ability to win such an unequivocal decision even with the political odds stacked against him in Düsseldorf, the additional fact that most observers had Fury winning the fight handily (widely in most cases) is an incidental point.

Fury, the guy who walked right up to the cannon and dismantled it about a month ago, is a coward?

A low contact fight in Düsseldorf was the wisest strategy for Fury, given that he was able to execute it to such unequivocal effect and given that Wladimir's third man in the ring was likely to be gunning for him in Germany. Even as low contact as the bout was, Tony Weeks still contrived a way to deduct a point from Fury while turning a blind eye to a flagrant leaping headbutt from a peevish, frustrated, outmaneuvered Klitschko.

Had the storms around Fury not conspired to kill their rematch, you'd have seen a different fight in Manchester. We can only speculate as to the outcome, but I consider it quite likely that Klitschko would have been stopped. Fury certainly had (has) the strings to his bow.

Now we're talking. Let's get into the meat. (I doubt that as much as 90% agrees with you, by the way.)


So, you say that Wlad threw his three main punches with textbook form. Ok. But where was his bodypunching? How often did you see an uppercut? (The last one I recall him throwing hit him in his own face, and he was on his 67th pro bout instead of his 4th.) When did he demonstrate any infighting nous/skill? (The last time I recall him trying to do so is precisely when he hit himself in the face with his own uppercut.) Significant mid-fight adjustments when the tide was against him? Did he have head and upper body movement and feint game to compare with Fury? Is his footwork comparably intelligent?

Wlad's most successful years defined him as a pattern fighter with three punches and some in-and-out footwork that served him very well in his era while he dealt mostly with stocky plodders and the occasional stiff giant (and the occasional noisy cruiserweight chancer). As a pattern fighter, he was a talented one who was able to get the most out of himself due to commendable dedication and persistence and a sympathetic, intelligent coach.

Fury can work outside, inside and at medium range. He can operate as a beautiful pure boxer, with lovely lateral movement and jab. He can maul, he understands how to use his body inside and make angles to get short punches off in close quarters. He can slip and counter in mid-range exchanges of fire. He has a more dexterous jab than Klitschko, it does many more things than Wlad's did. He has a greater variety of punches than Klitschko and uses the latter's bread and butter punches (not only the jab, but the right and the hook) with greater variety, too. He works the body.


On to the intangibles. Fury > Wladimir in this category, and that's not even close.

Wlad is willing, he has the heart and the stiff upper lip to claw himself off the canvas and keep going until he can't beat a count or an official waves it off. But when he would hit the deck, a knockout was invariably not too far behind. Fury, on the other hand, rises, recovers and wins (or draws, when the politics are stacked against him in Los Angeles).

Fury also has the superior boxing brain, having demonstrated the ability to adjust mid-fight (as referred to above). His reading comprehension is some way ahead of Wlad's.

Fury is also the bolder of the two; he can be restrained of his own strategic choosing, but Wlad was pathologically tentative in his defining years (eliciting the ire of Emanuel Steward on more than one occasion). In short, Fury dares to do, as you saw one month ago with his execution of a declared strategy that most dismissed as suicidal and unlikely.

Tyson is also the more teachable (his rematch with Wilder alone is evidence of that – a mere two months with Steward and he was hooking off the jab like a classic Kronk product), the quicker learner, is better at integrating technical nuances.


Fury's versatility makes Wlad look basic. Which is why Wlad was so dumbfounded when they met. If Wlad can't set himself to punch, he's beat. He's not an intuitive fighter like Fury, nor a man for finding answers when the tide is against him.


Tyson and Wlad have no significant common opponents (unless you count Pianeta, who Fury tuned up with after his return a couple of years ago). But if Tyson had ever fought Sasha Povetkin – the stocky guy whose unusual footspeed spooked Klitschko and inspired the most farcical performance of the latter's career – the difference in overall capability between the two would have been revealed quite explicitly.

So you don't factor in the reality that men Fury's size are rarely so coordinated and agile, but are rather more cumbersome and limited? You just fall back on Naazim Richardson's sour logic and regurgitate the old size advantage cliché?

As advantages go, size is only a nominal one, it can be negated if you don't know how to use it.

If you disagree, can you tell me why Tye Fields never rose to dethrone Wladimir? Fight fans derided Fury as a "British Tye Fields" on his way up, after all.

Someone has finally made an argument for Nikolai Valuev being Tyson Fury's superior. I can't even dignify that.

He felt David Haye's left hook, for sure. Wilder's right hand, I'd wager, would leave an impression, too, if it landed.



Your post was one of the most wrongheaded I've read in a long time. Very perplexing, and not merely because you are conversing in your second (or third?) language.

 

Fhooking hell
One as got to be self isolating if not
You care far to much for a grown man

 

woft excellent my man

 

You involved in boxing?