Tyson Fury's next opponent?

I think comparing fighters based on 'resume' alone is very reductive and ignores all nuance and context. I know you obsessively compare fighters this way, but there's obviously far more too it than just a 'resume' record.

Out of interest though - which win vs Klitschko do you think was better? Fury's or Joshua's? This question is not "which was the more entertaining fight" btw.

 

Wilder banged him out in 5
Martin in 6

So not really

 

Watch the fights, Washington was out boxing Wilder and took several rounds causing Wilder issues with his jab . Martin won every round comfortably in my opinion.

 

Well boxing is sport to hit and not get hit so it will have to be Fury's win.

Couple of debatable points on the issue though: Wlad came in against Aj in much better visibly phyisical condition coming in the lightest he had done years. Wlad fought a more aggressive style against AJ like he did in his best peformances against Povetkin and Pulev rather than a defence first style like his disappointing peformances against Jennings and Fury (although you could argue Fury slickness and movement prevented Wlad from fighting in a offensice style). Also AJ managed to drop Wlad mutiple times and stop him unlike Fury.

 

I've watched them, i wouldn't comment on them if i hadnt

But you gave no criteria before your claim
So your basing it on round won etc
Fair enough

You know how Wilder fights tho, he looks for the opening and pretty much allows his opposition to box

Wilders probably done now but i honestly wish he would fight Whyte
He would deal with him in exactly the same way

 

The immediate cause of the ban was his refusal to take the test, and that was due to admitted cocaine use. Between the initial "failure" and the refusal due to cocaine, he pissed clean a number of times.

Again, he never missed a single fight due to nandrolone, and UKAD was afraid to take it to court, so in my book, there was not test and nothing was proven.

As for agreeing to back-dated bans, they wanted to have their careers back, so that doesn't impress me at all.

 

I think you are confused. Fury 100% failed for cocaine in the timeframe and also refused a test, this was ontop of the dodgy nandrolone 'fail'

 

Regardless, the suspension was for the cocaine issue. He never missed a single fight due to PEDS, except in ex post facto name only.

 

It wasn't. It was for the nandrolone as was Hughies.

 

Uh, no, no it wasn't. It was retro-actively made so.

 

So Hughie got done for coke too?

"Tyson and Hughie Fury's position is that they have never knowingly or deliberately committed any anti-doping rule violation. ‎In recognition of the respective counter-arguments and the risks inherent in the dispute resolution process, each side has accepted a compromise of its position.

"Taking into account the delays in results management that meant charges were not brought in respect of the nandrolone findings until June 2016, and the provisional suspensions that Tyson and Hughie Fury have already effectively served, the two year period of ineligibility is backdated to 13 December 2015, and therefore expires at midnight on 12 December 2017."

 

Hughie fought Parker in September 2017, so their backdated ban doesn't even add up.

 

Yeah its a crazy situation, he also fought twice in 2016, but the point i was making is Tyson got of lightly if you consider he got done for that, failed a test for cocaine AND refused another test. A 2 year backdated ban is quite light.

 

I don't know anything about Hughie's case. You are quoting something that proves exactly my point. They back-dated a suspension to save face. He lost the time over cocaine, not PEDS.

 

Nope.