If Henry Cooper knocked Ali?It was more of a slip than a KO and Ali was 20 years old kid.Who was Fury and Wilder fighting at that age.Put 20 years old them against Cooper and they would be beaten inside 4 rounds.Ali did beat Cooper both times if I remember. If Ali knocked Foreman who had better chin than Fury and beat a Chuvalo who is known as the greatest chin in boxing he would beat Fury and that would be embarrassing night for Fury.Even Fury admitted that he would lose to Tyson and Ali because they are too skillful for him. Cunningham was a Journeyman while Cooper was UK best fighter and top 10 fighters in 60s.
They come from Ali who is the greatest, Norton one of the best guy that never won title and by Ernie Shavers who is rated hardest puncher in boxing history.If Fury fought often in 70s he would have twice more losses than Jimmy Young.
What about all the other losses? There are loads more. Will give you 5 mins to make up some more excuses.
Yeah when he was 35 and doing heavy drugs but his wining percentage in early 70s was very good, almost as good as Nortons. He had no amateur background and he still gave all heavyweights helluva fights.There are not excuses just facts just like Fury could not lay a glove on Ali and that Ali would beat him like a drum.He is just better in everything and size is not anything without skill.
Nope, you just do not know how fighters today are bad and stiff and unskilled compared to 70s and 90s guys.Joy Joyce would be David Jaco in if he fought in 90s, big stiff journeyman who would end punch drunk.
I'm confused...are you saying Fury has no skill? And Young's winning percentage was good in the 70s cos he fought a load of bums lol He lost a tonne of early fights too, were they all freak accidents? Henry Cooper and a string of other bums all laid gloves on Ali, decking him and almost knocking him out...but somehow 6ft9" skilled power-punching ATG Fury would just hit thin air? Come on man.
Henry Cooper is twice faster than Tyson Fury and was one of the biggest punchers from 60s.He decked a kid 20 years old Ali, just put a 20 years old Fury against 20 years old Ali and he would get not just beaten but maybe killed. Young did not have any amateur experience, I would love to see Fury and Wilder without any amateur experience fighting. Cooper is swarmer which is bad for out boxers like Ali but Fury is boxer too and Ali is better one.Style make fights and Cooper is bad style for Ali and Fury but fighters with same style like Ali and Fury? Ali is just better in everything than stiff no punch Fury.
Fury is clever enough, and sound enough fundamentally to have made it to low level contender class, say #9 or #10. He lacked speed and power enough to make it through the Lyle’s, Shaver’s, Bonavena’s, let alone Frazier, Norton, Foreman or Ali. But he would at least rise to low level contender. Fury cannot punch, Wilder cannot box, Joshua cannot take a punch, and Ruiz cannot stop eating. Fury simply is not that strong or fast, just big, with good boxing skills, a willingness to fight dirty, and a lot of heart. I think Larry is right and Fury doesn’t have the ability to come remotely close to beating any of the Golden Age greats, let alone Sonny Liston. Lennox Lewis says of Fury: “Never has a man so big punched so small.” Fury has been using his huge size to substitute for the punching power he does not have, solid fundamentals, and a great ring IQ. But he has never had to face someone with equal or better boxing skills, equal or better ring IQ, and immensely greater speed, and strength… Fury has only fought two highly ranked fighters - one was 39 and over the hill, the other couldn’t box… Yes, Fury is big, but big only equates to good in the minds of fanboys. Fury is a good fundamental boxer with decent movement for a huge man - but he has no particular hand or foot speed, and no power for a giant. Bigger does not mean better, except to fanboys There are writers on here, such as “Never was,” who know nothing of boxing, and who confuse size with skill. Boxing writer and historian, Frank Thomas, explains the difference between size and skill: “In the minds of some, size trumps all. Ergo, the Klitschkos [or Fury] should defeat any other heavyweight who is not of similar stature. This gravely misunderstands the role of size in boxing, as amply demonstrated by yesteryear’s Primo Carnera, the Golden Age’s own Ernie Terrell, or modern fighters such as Nikolai Valuev and Lance Whitaker. In addition to height, it also misreads what “size” is. Many modern heavyweights are the same height as their 1970s counterparts, but pack twenty pounds or more of extra mass. Yet does that mass make them a better fighter? If it was earned by lifting weights, [or PED's] as is all too often the case, then the answer is no. Bulky muscles look impressive, but they do not help a fighter hit harder. Instead, they slow a fighter down and serve as useless bulk which must be hauled around the ring all night. Anyone who has trained using old school boxing methods is familiar with just how difficult it is to build good boxing muscle through weight lifting." Because fighters today are bigger, does not mean they are better. A physique like AJ's is useful if he is posing on a stage for Mr. Universe, and height like Fury’s helpful if you are dunking a basketball, and not a bit of help in the ring while a fat Mexican is pounding your huge posterior. Size helps big men against boxers without the skill to actually box them. Fury is not the only 6′9″ fighter in history - he is not that fast, or strong, but he is lucky enough to fight in an era where his average natural ability is magnified by his solid fundamentals, high ring IQ, and low quality competition.
I could see Fury beating Earnie, as long as he stayed away. If he made mistakes like he did in the first Wilder fight, he wouldn’t get up. As long as Fury stayed upright I think he’d win by decision. The other top contenders, forget it. Fury has a slight edge in boxing skill over Ron Lyle, but Lyle’s edge in power is more than enough to trump that. Larry Holmes in his prime would just box circles around Fury. And Fury doesn’t have the power jab he’d need to keep young Mike Tyson off him. He’s right, that would end quickly. So would a fight with Joe Frazier. I can’t see Tyson Fury actually winning a title at any time before the 2000s. He could have handled guys like John Ruiz and Chris Byrd, although they could have also beaten him. Even those two guys make the contenders of now look good. David Tua, who I’ve written about before, might clean the damn division out now. Fury would beat him on points—if he could get it that far. I’m not sure he would…
Hahaha...Is this the same Henry Cooper with 8 losses to complete bums before facing Ali and almost sparking him?
Which bum did Henry Cooper fought? Ingemar Johansson world champ,Patterson world champ,Zora Folley top 10 contender of 60s,Joe Erskine top 5 UK contender?
Just search on internet top 5 UK boxers of all time and Coopre,Lennox and Bugner are rated higher than a stiff basketball player.
