George Foreman Versus Tyson Fury

You are wasting your time. White Bomber makes up his mind before he enters a thread and then makes bold, emphatic statements. He will then use all sorts of strange arguments to defend his position in a cart before the horse style of posting. To claim that it doesn't matter who the boxer when judging punching power is mind numbingly stupid, yet not even the 5th craziest thing he's said.

The issue isn't that he thinks Wilder hits harder than Foreman, it's how he reaches that conclusion and the way he defends his points. They make no sense at all and it's very common in several threads he posts in.


As for Foreman vs Fury, Fury is so incredibly inconsistent it's really hard to tell exactly how good he is these days. When your most recent fights are a glorified sparring match with Chisora (for the 3rd time!), stopping the very limited Whyte, and needing to get off the floor to go life and death with a 37 year old MMA fighter to just barely earn a decision, I don't even know where to begin. As has been repeated ad nauseum, Fury beating Usyk should give us a very good idea on how good Fury is overall in terms of h2h. Frankly, I can't possibly pick recent Fury against Foreman until Fury finally gets in the ring with Usyk. However, if it's "peak" Fury who was using his herky jerky style with good moment and feints against Wladmir, or even the 1st Wilder fight, I could see Fury frustrating and outlasting Foreman to get a clear decision or possibly stopping him. The issue is that again, Fury is so wildly inconsistent.

 

Even at his absolute best Fury got knocked down multiple times against Wilder. I don't see how he can withstand an onslaught from the technically superior Foreman, and he's not knocking George out obviously. Even at his peak I feel like the idea of Fury is better than the reality, his defence can be quite leaky and though you can get away with that vs a low volume, All Time Bad skilled fighter in Wilder, I don't think he should be so favourable vs ATG's

 

He wasnt at his absolute best in the 1st and 3rd Wilder fight. Only in the Wlad and 2nd Wilder fight.

 

Yes I did.

Cause it doesn't.
If Usain Bolt does 9.6 in a race, it does not matter if his opponent is Tyson Gay or a nobody (in terms of running) like me.

No it's not, at least not when it comes to attributes like punching power or speed.
Wilder can fight total bums or the best ATG's in history, it does not make him punches less or more hard, he still punches the same.
And if the opponent is better, it doesn't mean he also has a better chin. A bum might posses a better chin than an ATG.
For example, boxers like McCall, Tua, Ikeabuchi - have a much better chin than boxers like Louis or Patterson.

 

This seems like a strange way to maneuver around his career.

Usually when people say someone was "at their best" they give a range of years for when they are considered prime. For example, Tyson in 86-88, Holmes from 78-82, something like that.

Based on your criteria, Fury is a very hot and cold, yo-yo fighter who constantly goes back and forth between good to bad to ok. It looks like cherry picking to say Wladmir and the 2nd Wilder fights were prime, but not the 1st or 3rd Wilder fights and then ignoring everything else.

 

Yeah Fury's leaky defense could cost him big time, prime or not. My biggest concern would be how quickly he swells and cuts, even in fights he wins he can look like he went through a war. If Foreman manages to establish his jab consistently, Fury's eye is gonna be looking even worse than the Francis fight.

My 2nd biggest concern is the body. Few people even bother going for such a huge and obvious target. People forget even though Ali managed to grapple with Foreman, pull his head down, etc, Ali had to either roll with or just straight up tank dozens and dozens of excruciating body shots. Fury has not demonstrated that he can take it to the body that well and if he's forced to stand his ground being slowed down from all the body shots, Foreman is going to be right in front of him launching bombs. I don't know if he can get out of that. Foreman is a 2-fisted threat with an iron chin and had very good accuracy while Wilder was mostly a 1-fisted threat and had no idea how to fight up close.

 

There's no reason to think he wasn't at his best in the other fights. You can't say anytime he performs to expectations or overperforms he was physically at his best and when he underperforms he's not.

Hell he gained 20lbs of pure fat inbetween Wilder 1 and Wilder 2 and then nearly lost on cuts to Otto Wallin just before Wilder 2, if anything evidence suggests Wilder 2 wasn't him at his physical best, he just had a better performance / better strategy.

 

No its easy with him:

When he is the complete underdog and people think he has no chance (Wlad, Wilder 2) he is at 100%.

When he is the compelte favorite and people think he cant be beaten (Wallin, Wilder 3, Ngannou) he usually isnt at 100%.

I am note a Tyson Luke Fury fan, but his brother Shane explains it here very well:

This content is protected

So do Lennox Lewis and Rummy's Corner (@Rumsfeld ):

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

Obvious problem here is that we know exactly how fast Usain Bolt runs. We have no objective data on Wilders punching power and all we know thus far is that he's knocked out several people (none of whom have notable chins) and knocked down a fighter in Fury who's been knocked down by fighters that aren't considered ATG powerful.

You doubling down on your "level of competition doesn't matter" is ridiculous. You are aware that fighters look faster if their competition is slow? That fighters look stronger if their competition is weak? That fighters look like they can take punches if their opponent isn't known for punching hard and look like they can punch harder if their competition isn't known for taking punches?

 

Man, @White Bomber isn’t intellectually capable of understanding any of that brilliantly written response.

 

His brother can say whatever he wants. Maybe it's true when Fury feels pressure and people are doubting him he performs better. That's not what I'm getting at.

That doesn't mean you can cherry pick random fights spread across multiple years and say those are his "prime" fights. A fighter is in his prime during a certain brief time period of their life. Ali from 64-67 are the years most people say he hit his peak. Nobody says Ali of 61, 2 fights in 65, 1 fight in 72, and 1 fight 74, that doesn't make sense since Ali looked totally different in all those years.

Once again, if you're going to cherry pick 2 Fury fights that are FIVE years apart with 2 totally different styles, different trainers, where his timing/speed/accuracy/defense etc all look COMPLETELY different, you can't say those 2 fights are Fury's "prime". BUT, if you want to say "those are the two fights where Fury looked the most impressive", then sure you can say that. If we use Ali again, he arguably looked more "impressive" in Zaire 74 than he did against Cooper in 66 even though he was past his prime in Zaire. Grading a fighters performance and saying when their prime is are two different things.

 

I can easily see Fury not being at his best for the first fight but saying that for the third fight is nonsense.

 

Then maybe change the word prime with peak. Prime is a time period, while peak is the best shape, the top of the mountain.

Ali had his prime 1964-1967, but reached his peak post probably in late 1966 against Cleveland Williams. He was never that good again, not before and not after.

Sure you have the right to disagree, but to me T. Luke Fury looked in his best possible form againt Wlad and Wilder 2, Wlad because of the speed and defense, Wilder 2 because of the offensive. Basically what Ali did in one fight (C. Williams), Fury needed two fights to show his best offensive and defensive.

But so or so its fair to disagree with Shane. I would have asked Shane if this is all true, why his brother blew away an easy money grab like Tom Schwarz so easy?

If he always underperforms against weak peopel when he is the huge favorite, then he should have had a life and death battle with Schwarz in June 2019.

 

Dude you contradicted yourself by your own definition of the word peak. You said Ali's prime was 64-67 and his "peak" performance was Williams within that time frame of 66.

Fury can't be at his "peak" in two separate fights that were 5 years apart ignoring everything in between.

Once again, you can say the Wlad fight and Wilder 2 were the fights where he looked his best, but "peak" refers to a brief window of time, not cherry picking two fights spread across nearly half a decade. NOBODY labels a fighter's peak the way you are.

Fury was totally different against Wladmir compared to Wilder 2, which is why you can't have 2 fights separated by 5 years and call that his peak. His offense looked better in Wilder 2, his defense looked better against Wladmir. Because his timing, accuracy, style, and trainer were all completely different in those two fights. You can't just make a Frankenstein version of Fury combining his best offensive and defensive qualities from those two fights ignoring any flaws and any bad fights between those two dates.

 

Ok, if this is the definition of it, then ok. My english isnt bad but its not my first language, so maybe thats why. I thought peak is basically when someone reaches his maximum, the best level in his game.

Tennis Legend Boris Becker for example had his best years 1985 to 1991, then it went down. But in 1996 he won one last Grand Slam tournament, and the level he reached there was very close to his best level.

Same with Andre Agassi. He reached his best form/level first around 1994/95, then he had some very terrible years (doing Crystal Meth and other things), and 1999 to 2003 he reached his best form/level for the second time.

So it is possible athletes reach their best level with some years apart.