Can you be labled an "oaf," and still be good?

Yeah you get banned. and I hope it isn't too long before you are banned again.

 

Your waist is bigger around than your chest don't talk to me old fool.

 

Yes ,I was trying to think of a word to describe wlad v Fury and now I've got it ..OAFISH!

 

Did ali look like a technical marvel when he was dropped by sonny banks? What about when he fought jimmy young?

How about tysons fight with pinklon thomas? Brilliant display of ring generalship in his 2nd ruddock fight.

 

You're not following the conversation at all.

Thread title "can you be labeled an oaf and still be considered good?"

Bitplayervesti implied fury and wilder were oafs by pointing out that they are considered exceptional boxers by some in todays era.

I disagreed saying no sensible fan who knows boxing thinks of fury and wilder as "oafs" to begin with but acknowledged they did have some bad habits just like any other fighter.

You then butted in and replied

"Have you seen his entire career? He was looked at as a joke before the klitschko fight, just a big man with power and heart"

Your post, to me anyway, suggests that furys excellent technique, footwork, etc dont make up for some of his earlier performances. That if you look at his "whole career" you would have to come to the conclusion he was just another big strong guy and an oaf. Which is...a very silly conclusion to reach and a non sequitur if that is indeed what you meant.

I gave very valid examples like vitali and foreman who had poor form and technique while young but became better. Nobody calls comeback foreman a "lumbering oaf with no technique", he is constantly praised for his jab, improved balanced, defense, stamima, etc.

So why did you have an issue with me saying fury isnt considered an oaf? He isnt. He can box very well on his toes, can counterpunch, use lateral movement, and can even switch to southpaw. If he's an "oaf" because he didnt always fight like that or had some sloppy performances in the past, then i guess canelo is still a flat footed plodder despite his performance against golovkin by your logic.

And of couse i compared his technique to some of ali and tysons poorer performances. Thats what you did with fury. See how that works? Technique is what the whole discussion was about, what else would i compare? You chose to change the conversation away from fury at his best for some reason and nitpicked specific moments in his career because the klitschko fight doesnt suit your agenda.

 

Of course shws are less coordinated and agile than men who weigh 30-40 lbs less, thats common sense. Even ali was considered an anomoly and his highest weights were in the 220 range because man that size usually cant bounce gracefully on their toes and move fast unless theyre shredded modern sprinters or basketball players.

In regards to fury, again, it doesnt really matter what people were saying 5, 6+ years ago. Hes gotten better. I dont understand the point of saying a fighter had such and such flaw years ago if its no longer valid. Its like saying "all blake griffin can do is dunk the ball" when we know this isnt true anymore. It reeks of agenda if you want to ignore fury's more recent performances where he is clearly anything but oafish. Whats even more puzzling is you felt the need to point out that people were calling fury oafish years ago but in the very same breath you claim that you dont personally like calling world champion fighters oafs. Youre basically sneak dissing fury through someone elses words.

You cant say because fury is no longer considered an oaf then neither should older lumbering guys. Fighters like jesse willard and primo carnera never adapted their styles or changed their gameplan the way fury did. Unless of course, youd like to demonstrate willard or carnera bouncing on their toes, improving their defense, becoming counter punchers, switching to southpaw, etc. People changed their mind on fury because he vastly improved lol, they didnt just have a change of heart and warmed up to him with no change in his style. I can guarrantee you valuev will be viewed the same 20 years from now or worse.

 

Emmanuel Steward never trained Vitali, he trained Wladimir. Vitali stayed with Fritz Sdunek through his entire career

 

This is simply untrue as theres an entire documentary on the klitschko brothers on netflix and steward is shown speaking on the different approach he has to take with them.

Also, his page on boxrec lists vitali as a fighter he briefly trained. I never said he was he primary trainer or anything:

http://boxrec.com/media/index.php/Emanuel_Steward

 

And for the third time, i dont get what your point is. Fury has adapted and improved his ring iq and technique while guys like willard and valuev never did.

I get what youre saying and why you keep bringing up his old fights, i just dont see it helping your agenda. Now lets see this footage of carnera using good footwork, counters, defense, etc.

 

I have the Klitschko movie. Obviously Steward was around Vitali, because both brothers were so close. I'm sure he helped out and offered Vitali advice, and knew him quite well through his work with Wladimir, but Sdunek was the main man in Vitali's corner where as Wlad replaced Sdunek with Steward.
I wouldn't classify Vitali as an oaf. Wlad was by far the more fluid fighter, but Vitali was expert at fighting from a distance. Vitali was an awkward fighter but far from being an oaf.

 

Tyson Fury probably does at least a dozen things in this pretty routine stretch from the Chisora fight that Willard, Primo, or Buddy Baer etc. never would have even conceived of doing:

https://streamable.com/14c18

Clearly a much smarter, more fluid, more creative fighter despite the inevitable constraints from his size. Not an oaf.