Tucker's hand broken or just an excuse ?

So, is this a police interrogation and you’ve got me under the bright lamp, causing me to sweat and squint.

What are the consequences chief? Life in the clink or…”say it ain’t true”….the chair?

Your question and the answer you’re expecting isn’t the linch pin to your argument that you’re trying to imply it to be. It is basically irrelevant.

The honest and common sense answer is Ngannou gave Fury a fair and square tough fight.

In fact, it’s arguable that Francis defeated Fury - another apparent KD that wasn’t scored, Fury’s blatant use of the elbows for which no points were deducted and, as in the Wilder fight, a ridiculous amount of respite time afforded to Fury after the offical KD -

IIRC, a whole 23 secs was afforded to Fury from the moment he touched the canvas to the moment the fight was waved back on.

Interesting that you’ve nominated another Tyson for whom many excuses have been made and who didn’t fight to the level that many of his fans had forecast for him in other fights.

The guy is still in denial re his consecutive losses to Usyk….there is currently talk of a third match between them….please God, NO!

Ngannou brought unique armoury to his fight against Fury - aside from power, he possessed an ideal combination of size strength - negating Fury’s choice tactics of leaning, mauling and shoving smaller opposition - tactics which also allowed Fury to have periodic rests/breathers - luxuries he didn’t get to enjoy against Francis.

Did either Tyson or Fury rematch Douglas or Ngannou to prove that the outcomes/complexions of those fights were anomalies? No.

ATGs often do chase up fighters who beat them or gave them tough fights the first time around - in order to rectify themselves and correct their ledgers.

Francis didn’t need to be necessarily top level in order to have just the right equipment to defeat the likes of Fury.

He has also had but two fights at HW - yes, KO’d by AJ in two but then that’s the same AJ that Fury never fought - and a fighter Fury is still baulking on fighting to this day. All the talk is nothing. It’s material results that count.

Like I said re Mike Tyson, and I will include Tyson Fury, if neither they or their opposition are allowed any excuses - equitable, no?, its the Tysons who lose out the most in the realm of woulda, shoulda, coulda.

Anyway, that’s my “short” answer to your curious question.

 

Marvis Frazier only lost to prime Holmes and Tyson goofy. You had so many examples and chose the worst one, funny stuff. Your arguments are garbage and just discredit Smith and his top wins like he wasn't capable of setting shots up lol

Notice how you put words in my mouth when all I said Smith isn't as crude as the poster suggested. Now define skilled since as far as i can see, you're clamoring on about this nonesense of Smith having bad technique and an impoverished tool set at the top level. Basic doesn't mean bad. He didn't have good defense true but it's no worse than an average top contender today, his footwork was fine, he could step back and counter over hooks, he threw all the punches in the book with good balance and torque. He had a good jab, probed it, snuck the right hand over it. He's just basic, he isn't some unskilled slugger like Makhmudov

 

You don't have to elaborate on the answer, just draw simple conclusions.. Fury is #1 HW before Ngannou. In the fight with Ngannou he almost loses, Ngannou has more success with Fury than many established fighters. Does this mean that 37 year old Ngannou is a top heavyweight boxer? or is it too complicated a question for you?

 

I really dont care what you think of my feelings dude.

Typo, it happens, are you actually gonna give a counter-argument or keep acting like a passive-aggressive high-school girl?

As I already argued, he didnt, he beat inferior ones that didnt fight half as intelligent as Douglas did against him.

 

You can’t efficiently use those tactics without being strong and tough enough to stand in the line of fire with Tyson. Thats my point. Ruddock didnt use any of those tactics and still made it competitive with Tyson simply because he could stand his ground and go blow for blow with Mike. Tucker got outboxed by Douglas before he faded and he spent the entire fight with Tyson potshotting and backing off whereas Douglas was trading combos with Tyson and shooting uppercuts / pushing him back in the clinch. Long count is literally youtube-level boxing knowledge at this point, refs can count as long as they wish to.

I did, he was terrible, this guy lost to a 5 inches shorter 30 lbs lighter Marvis Frazier that spent the whole fight slugging under his nose. Joe Joyce looks like Mayweather in comparison simply by using a consistent jab.

 

Most heavyweights regardless of size aren't, thats the problem. Why do you see many bigger heavyweights fight Tyson on the backfoot ? Because they are trying to use their height and reach and are likely to come off second best at mid/close range. Ruddock still lost despite staying in the center of the ring trying to punch Tysons head off far more times than Douglas did, and his uppercut was a KO punch and made to order for crouching heavyweights like Tyson.

Douglas was on the backfoot all night, he just wasn't moving like Tucker and got knocked out and hurt as many times as Bruno. Bruno is probably physically stronger than Douglas based on his muscle mass and weight training. He made countless clinches to disrupt Tyson and limit his attack, sneak some punches in the pocket, box him when the range is there and clinch again when Tyson gets in range. Holyfield did it in more dominant fashion than Douglas despite being a much smaller heavyweight.

This content is protected

This content is protected

Joyce makes Smith look like Sugar Ray Robinson and James was fighting someone who has better technique, navigating the ring and defending better than Chisora. Just play the footage in sync

 

I did answer. Clearly and logically.

No difficulties whatsoever.

It seems you have comprehension issues.

Humour me. Answer your own question and include reasonings for your conclusion.

Let’s see if I haven’t already addressed what you have to say.

 

sorry, I think I didn't read your post. of course I may have problems understanding but maybe you could repeat it in one sentence and not in a dozen or so that no one reads.

Is Ngannou giving an equal fight to the best HW on the same level?

 

Then what exactly are you disagreeing with? Nothing here really contradicts my point.

As I said, Douglas that night showed grit Bruno simply did not against Tyson, and Tucker was backing up the whole time even when he was throwing punches and was blatantly unable to control Tyson in the clinch at times whereas Douglas was actually landing hard shots in combinations and was able to control Tyson in the clinch.

Nice job bringing up a shot 38 year old Joyce against Chisora, watch him vs Dubois, he is a much better boxer than Smith ever was.

 

sorry to butt in but at the same time Bruno, Thomas, Ruddock, Tubns, Berbick and at least a few other Tyson opponents showed determination as great as Douglas. It doesn't matter. As Teddy Atlas said - Tyson could only be defeated by Tyson. and although it very clearly happened, although there are many reasons and evidence that it happened, for some reason we really want to believe that Buster Douglas had something that night that he never had before or since, that no one noticed or knew. He had something more than others.. We make up an ideology where there is none.

 

Tucker clinched Tyson plenty of times and usually wasn't overpowered when they tied up. Can you please timestamp multiple times that happened ? I disagree with you suggesting Douglas's larger size, strength, and his ability to stay in Tysons face had more of a part to play in Tysons defeat rather than the smothering, sneaking punches up close, moving around, pushing Tyson away to create distance to box and beating him to the punch.

You say Douglas was the first big skilled heavyweight Tyson ever fought that stood his ground while all others tried to box off the back foot, but Douglas did it too. He wasn't trying to stay in Tysons face like Ruddock when he came forward, he both boxed him in the center of the ring and on the backleg, neutralized Mike with clinches when he tried to rush him, pushed him back to make him reset, stepped back to counter and used plenty of movement to get away. Holyfield used less movement but still did all of this, beat Tyson up on the inside much more than Douglas ever did and defeated Mike in more dominant fashion

Chisora was 41 and shot, no excuses. He looked the exact same against Parker

 

Thats not even what I said, I said they played more part than Tyson supposedly forgetting how to fight overnight.

Yeah, he did it with more skill than others did, hence he won, thank you.

Chisora regardless of his age have been having some of his best performances lately. Joyce wasn't the same after Zhang. The Joyce against Dubois was clearly far superior than Smith.

 

You claimed Tucker couldn't physically control and tie Tyson up but that was a lie and he's a skilled big man who Tyson beat along with Ruddock.

It was the skill and tactics yes, not necessarily the size advantage thats my point, little Holyfield was more dominant against Tyson and did the same thing Douglas did

 

Tucker is built like Deontay Wilder, he was getting walked down the whole fight and his clinches weren't that effective in spoiling Tyson's offense either. Ruddock didn't clinch as much but he was actually strong enough to avoid getting walked all over the ring, hence why he was one of Tyson's toughest opponents.

"Little Holyfield" was on a cocktail of roids and stronger than most HWs around. Btw Douglas beat Tyson a lot worse.

 

Buster was just 10 pounds heavier and clinched to disrupt Tyson in his tracks, Tucker did that when he clinched. You said Tucker couldn't control Tyson like Douglas when they tied up so can you timestamp and show me the difference ? They had a different approach but clinching is clinching.

You're trying say Douglas success was mostly due to a combination of size, above average strength and skill, but Holyfield dropped Tyson multiple times, won every round, never got floored. He had an easier time doing the exact same thing Douglas did and he was smaller. Most heavyweights were on PEDs in the 90s. Ruddcok hit way harder than Douglas and had better timed uppercuts, Douglas didn't have more power. It wasn't his strength lol, and he still lost

You can legit argue that taller guys fighting like Tucker using their height, reach and movement is generally a more difficult task for shorter guys to deal with than what Douglas did. Why wouldn't it be ?