Is Tyson Fury a dirty fighter?

Oh I'm not saying it wasn't a legit knockdown. I see you agree with me that Fury push him.

 

Vitali was a steroid cheat, by your own logic. I don't want to hear your excuses for Vitali, just as you don't want to hear mine for Fury. You liked a guy's post in the thread who said that Fury and other drug cheats should have lifetime bans but now you say you don't agree. Cool.

If Fury was on PED's for the Wlad fight then why did he pass all the tests? And if he was getting away with it despite passing the tests, by the same logic maybe Wlad was also getting away with it, more likely imo as he was the big A-side favourite fighting at home and had a shredded PED physique at 41.

Fury beating McDermott 1 and you not liking it has nothing to do with whether Fury is a dirty fighter. Zero, zip, nada.

You made the laughable claim that Wlad was a "very clean fighter", in a thread criticising Fury for being a dirty fighter. You don't see the hypocrisy there? You also don't see that Fury, who has frequently fought on the road as the B-side and underdog, will lose more points for illegal tactics than protected A-side fighters like Wlad, Hopkins or Ward?

All of the top 5 are in their 30's: Fury 34, Usyk 35, Wilder 37, Joyce 37, Joshua 33. Ruiz 33, Whyte 34, Parker 30, Ortiz 43, Sanchez 30. Even Hrgovic, who you once believed would be "the next heavyweight champion", is 30 and Zhang (who Hrgovic has unfinished business with) is 39.

 

For as much sense that you often make, you know sweet FA all about doping and anti-doping policy and governance.

...for (much of) the same reasons Lance Armstrong was the most tested athlete in history, and never failed a doping test.

 

It was a rhetorical question to Mendoza, not representative of my own views.

 

That guy thinks these boxers are running on rice and beans. Any time I hear the phrase "drug cheat" I know that the person using it still believes in Santa.

 

I don't know what he believes really as I've never followed his posts, he's definitely hypocritical though. Perhaps I should have put drug cheat in quotation marks but I was dealing with a simpleton and wanted to use language I was sure he understood.

 

The guy believes that only those lackadaisical (or poor enough) enough to get caught are those using. By definition, that would mean that these men were using for the first time. Kovalev, for instance, just decided to use testosterone for the first time in his late 30's.

 

You said that Fury should defend against a "young contender". Unless "young" includes "30 and over" then that's very difficult as the best opponents are overwhelmingly 30+, actually 35+ in the cases of Usyk and Joyce.

If you'd come out and admitted that your favourite fighters Wlad and Vitali were "dirty" and "drug cheats" in your attack on Fury then that would be one thing but instead you claim that Wlad was "a very clean fighter" and Vitali's failed drug test doesn't really matter and doesn't imply he was using as a pro. Virtually everyone has their biases but not everyone is a brazen hypocrite.

 

Vitali was obviously on the Tabasco, but his brother must fall under every category of "dirty" imaginable.

1) Joosed to the gills. (although I don't consider this dirty - what I consider dirty is him trying to catch others out by being in bed with anti-doping)

2) A domineering taskmaster in the boardroom. Ridiculous clauses and loved an easy opponent.

3) Had to have everything his own way in the ring, from the canvas, to the referees, to the gloves and so on.

But still gets referred to as a "gentleman", somehow. One of the most perplexing things in boxing.

A very good boxer - not as great as people on this forum now make him out to be, but still very good, and Fury had beat at the peak of his powers, as motivated as ever (he despised Fury) and with all of the cards stacked in his favour (Germany, gloves, ring issues).

As overrated as W. Klitschko is, it is still the best win in the division from an active boxer. The next best are Fury's wins over Wilder.

 

Without a doubt. The thing isn't who is dirty, but who has carte blanche to fight dirty without reprimand.