If Tyson fury came along in the 70's

You cannot even read. Remove Frazier's sub heavyweight opponents, and his ko drops to abysmal percentages.

 

no, he specifically means foreman.

you cannot read, whilst claiming another cannot.

wow dum are you, doubley so.

 

I just think Fury is too athletically gifted for the 70's. Name me one decent heavweight from that era? The 70's was garbish comepared to the likes of Chisora that Fury beat with ease.

 

Two tips:

Quit the drink and learn to spell.

 

The gift of punching yourself in the face, that is what makes Fury truly special.

 

Foreman and Holmes would knock Fury out. Shavers or Lyle might too. Young would outbox him. Big John Tate and Joe Bugner where two big men who could swat and be dangerous too.

 

me spalling is ok thenkyou vewy much. Fury greatest heavyweight to step into the ring. So fast makes Ali look like joe bugner in comparison.

 

A true gift that only the greats can do.

 

If Tyson fury came along in the 70's....

.... he wouldn't get past Joe Bugner.

 

Joe Bugner would duck Fury. Even Ali would pay off Tyson Fury not to fight him as he would of prefered easier fights such as foreman and Frazier.

 

****ey TKO3 Fury

 

They bribed Ring Magazine for 3 years to keep him ranked?

I can get needing to grease the wheels for the sanctioning bodies, but Rings ratings archives are a more reliable (though not perfect) source. I find it hard to believe they ranked the wrong guy for 3 years.

If Wepner got to be world ranked for 3 years in the prime of that "golden age", there's no reason Fury wouldn't have.

 

lol.

thread needs to die.

 

Frazier and Foreman winning gold medals doesn't mean a thing when comparing to this era because they won those medals in their own era.

What exactly did Liston do before fighting Ali that impressed you so much? He was a Dereck Chisora level fighter, he beat a string of bums and the minute he stepped up was soundly beaten. By today's standards he would be ridiculed worse than Deontay Wilder.

The very fact you think that boxing is quantifiable by 'experts' proves how naive and sheep-like you are.

If boxing 'experts' existed we would not need boxing matches, we would just ask the 'experts' the outcome.

For every 'expert' who thinks Ali was the greatest there is an 'expert' who thinks that Tyson or Louis etc etc was the greatest.

Did any 'experts' predict Cooper would knock Ali down? Did any 'experts' predict Tyson would lose to Douglas? See my point?

No one knows anything for sure in boxing, which is why I am saying to you that fighters of today have every chance of beating Ali, in fact due to boxing's evolution they would have a very good chance.

Ali was just as beatable as anyone else and the guys today are bigger and stronger, and just as skilled (in fact usually more so) but usually lacking the colourful characters the 70s guys had which is why Ali, Frazier etc are wrongly perceived as better than everyone else.

I don't consider myself an expert in boxing, as the true experts are the ones in the ring fighting, everyone else has opinions and now and again they will be right by the law of averages but the fact is Ali did nothing to suggest that fighters of today wouldn't have an excellent chance of beating him.

'Experts' can kiss my ass! and for the record you don't know what you are talking about, you are just following the herd. I bet you listen to The Beatles of Elvis because you read they are also 'The Greatest'.

 

You don't remember the Ring Magazine rankings scandal? :huh

Of course King and Ring would unfairly rank fighters