Tyson Fury Never Dominated His Era..

You don't think Itauma would take the current version?

 

He probably would in a year or two.

Much depends upon what happens next.

 

I think he was very briefly 'the man ' after defeating Wlad, then returning and demolishing Wilder. His stock was super high at these points. However, he was his own worst enemy and soon became content dining out on past glory and reputation. And it only went so far before fans - and the public - saw through the smoke and mirrors.

 

I don't think it could be put more fairly than this.

And yes - Fury, despite himself, was a tad unlucky, as well.

 

I appreciate it was a title eliminator, but Wlad beat Peters in their first bout, despite being knocked down in 3 separate rounds and not scoring a knockdown himself.

If a fighter is knocked down in two separate rounds, doesnt score a knockdown themselves and wins 8 of the other 10 rounds, they win the fight.

58 posters on this site scored the fight for Fury vs 2 for Wilder and 12 x draws. Its wasn't quite a Lewis vs Holyfield 1 level robbery, but I agree with Janitor, the consensus is Fury deserved the decision - https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/how-did-you-score-wilder-vs-fury-1-settle-this-debate.713273/

 

Give me your score card then.

 

1-Peter wasn't the champion, Wladmir was

2-Wider didn't only win the 2 rounds he scored knockdowns in. Much has been exaggerated about how those rounds went because people were in an uproar accusing the judges of "protecting Wilder". Fury got hit plenty.

I didn't write down a scorecard, but I remember giving Wilder at least 4 rounds (including the two separate knockdown rounds) and saw 2 rounds that could've gone either way. If a judge gives Wilder even 1 of those rounds, Fury would be stuck with a draw even if he convincingly takes the remaining 6.

 

1. Actually, the title was vacant, neither were champions. Regardless, what relevance does it have to the feasibility of a boxer winning a fight they've been KD'd in multiple rounds, without scoring a knockdown themselves, on points? Are you saying beating a champion over 12 rounds when you suffered 2 KD's without scoring any yourself, is less feasible than winning a vacant title when suffering 3 KD's without scoring any? Either way, I consider it a mute point. If a fighter suffers 2 x KD's in separate rounds, without scoring any, and wins 8 or more of the remaining 10 rounds, they win the fight. It's as simple as that and perfectly feasible.

2. The original point Janitor made, which you challenged, was Fury was unlucky to get a draw. I posted a link to a thread where 81% of posters scored for Fury, 17% a draw and 2% for Wilder. Whilst I think you could make a credible argument that 81% doesn't quite constitute a robbery, it's certainly reasonable to consider Fury unlucky with the decision.

 

Fury's "reign" was absolute ****.
He promised a lot more than he delivered.

 

Should've stopped at Tyson Fury has an excellent resume, he most assuredly did not. That alone is enough to disqualify any other point attempting to be proven.

 

5-2-1 in title fights and no other loses.
Excellent top 3 wins.
Didn't dominate era.

Or

5-2 in title fights including robbery win and three other loses.
Excellent top 3 wins.
Didn't dominate era.

Either both are top ten or neither is.

 

I take it you are talking about Foreman.

 

I think Povetkin would have beat him if they met early on. Possibly AJ. Fury is all talk which pumped himself up well. But his record says otherwise. He’s a skilled dangerous fighter for anyone but his “greatness” is overtly exaggerated.

 

Looking forward to seeing you quietly jump off the bandwagon—just like you did with Joshua after the Ruiz loss, after years of calling him the H2H GOAT.

 

Povetkin would’ve been a dead man.