oh, really? where did you get this definition from? ive been trying to find the source of this, without luck. if i hit you, then run away so you cant touch me, did i just outbox you? am i a pugilistic artist?
Hard to argue with that. He beat Wilder really. AJ is highly protected. No balls to fight Wilder or Fury. That alone signifies his limitations.
Any decent puncher can hurt Wilder , Furys best punch is the left hook from southpaw stance , he could have changed it up more and had he went with Roaches gameplan would have probably won inside 5 rounds .
Jeezus...this is embarrassing, why not just own that your analysis was completely off base and admit you were wrong? I may be "dumb" but I'm not dumb enough to predict DB stopping Wilder, so at least there's that.
My own analysis said Wilder weighing over 220 had a 60% chance of winning. my own analysis said Breazeale weight of 255 had 50% chance and he should be 250, if you challenge that I didn't say this on here your going going to look very stupid more then you usually do . Beyond that not much would change in my overall prediction of they fought again because it wouldnt change whoever lands first wins in all likelihood and I'm sure Breazeales not going to throw a lazy left uppercut again where chances are it goes past 3 rounds it's a danger fight for Wilder.. You don't understand that because your an imbecile !
If I let you hit me, I would be a mug; if you went to hit me and i made you miss using footwork and defence and tagged you myself then I am a pugilist. If I got very good at it, then I would be a pugilistic artist and you would become frustrated and slightly deluded.[/QUOTE]
Tyson Fury is the best current heavyweight? Well I guess running from a old Wladimir Klistchko and only landing 86 punches or running from a unskilled Wilder landing only 84 punches does make him great. Sure he has poor footwork and throws slapping arms punches. But the Brits like him so that must mean something.
rhinocoote- "If I let you hit me, I would be a mug; if you went to hit me and i made you miss using footwork and defence and tagged you myself then I am a pugilist. If I got very good at it, then I would be a pugilistic artist and you would become frustrated and slightly deluded." that doesnt explain where you got the line i asked about. did you just repeat something you thought sounded cool, did you read it it in some rule book, wikipedia? lets figure out where you got this nugget of wisdom, so we can figure out the foundation for your belief.
please enlighten me with your definition? I am sure that the ref would say, "protect yourself at all times". I am also sure that it is common knowledge never to turn your back on an opponent? I am unsure how you could be a boxer without a defensive strategy?; Hence my definition of ' hitting without being hit?'- This is what I have always taught and will happily stand by my definition.
i never threw out a definition, you did. now you want me to make one up because you cant even say where you got that definition from. did you coin the phrase yourself? there have been countless champions who were happy to take one to give one, its a strategic decision, a part of intellectually doing what you believe will overcome youre opponent. would they be better boxers if they decided their ko shots arent worth throwing because they would also get hit, and it wouldnt fit your definition of what boxing is? sure, their chances for victory drop, buy hey, at least theyre living up to YOUR definition of what boxing is about.
Not to hijack the thread, but Tyson's daddy wants Whyte to have a straight title shot because Whyte deserves it: This content is protected This is John Fury, father of Tyson Fury, Brother of Peter Fury.... looool
