For a supposed all time great, let's be honest, Fury's résumé is embarrassing. Now, if he'd spent the last 7 or 8 years consistently facing everyone in and around the top 10, I might feel differently.
.................................... ......... ...... .................. ...... ...................... ..... .................. ................!!!!!!
so sure of yourself. . . meanwhile I can't even decide who wins the trilogy - never mind their first fight!
after Ngannou....I thought Fury should have retired. Fighting has a strange math though....one of the reasons I am not a multi-millionaire from betting on fights. Think it is a 65/35 fight....just don't know which is 65 or 35. fight all your life...and you still have the ability to rise to it one last time...methinks...if you do all the right things in preparing. great believer in training to your strengths...train smart...not hard for the sake of hard. there is a reason that boxing is not a physique contest...it is skills, heart and never say die...just some of the things. what I am wondering is....does Fury have that one more time...in him. it doesn't look like it to me. Usyk has the skills and then some. this is one fight that should have happened a long time ago. hope it is not just a mega cash out. you can bet on one thing though....I will be watching...with a nice cold brew or two.
People are so fickle. Fury thrives on challenges, there's no bigger challenge than Usyk. Expect the very best version of Fury!
i like that he is working on a sometimes neglected but crucial part of fighting. reaction time is what separates a prime fighter from a washed up one. its how you avoid punches, catch openings, and land counters. once reaction time slows, you can do none of that effectively against a fighter at high levels.
Not at all. I have said repeatedly I will give Fury massive props if he wins. But even if he does, the main thrust of the post still holds true.
It's not being fickle. It's examining his actions. And if he thrives on challenges (and I admit he has risen to the occasion to date) then he would have sought out more of them - and faced usyk much sooner.
Thank you for your considered response. Yes, I agree the sanctioning bodies are problematic. However, on balance, I would take them over the lineal title. Take Fury as a recent example and beneficiary. He has, perhaps smartly, milked the concept. Yes he beat Wlad, which was a good win. He then did not defend it in a rematch and surfaced later in two gimmie matches as a reigning champion! so it was a good marketing tool. He then drew with Wilder (credible) and instead of a rematch ... goes off to fight Wallin and Schwartz, two guys, no disrespect, who most fans had never heard of. And then we had the farce of chisora 3 and Ngannou.... My point is that - when not in the hands of a noble champion - the lineal championship is open to abuse and the champion under no obligation to fight the top contenders of his day. So should we reward them by counting meaningless fights as defences? From memory, George Foreman tried the same thing in the 90s. In fact wasn't Shannon Briggs technically 'lineal ' at one time?? - while Lewis, Holyfield, Tyson et al were all still operating? Sanctioning bodies - while far from perfect - should, in theory, at least force champions to face deserving contenders, while the lineal is done entirely at the whim of the person defending it.
Should Fury win it would solidify his position as the best heavyweight of his era. Even some of his greatest detractors begrudgingly acknowledge that.
Should Fury beat Usyk then that’s Klitschko dethroned Wilder dethroned and Usyk dethroned,let Fury haters and detractors try and name a better Heavyweight fighter of his era ! Same goes for Usyk as well though,should he beat Fury he is the best of his era .