Is Tyson "Gypsy King" Fury unbeatable?

He was on roids at that time, had an unfair advantage over a 40 year old champion.

Had it not been through a loophole which Fury's legal team took advantage of through UKAD's incompetence then the fight would have been ruled void.

114 - 112 Wilder

No people need to learn and understand the queensbury rules of boxing. I've broken down how Jack Reiss failed to adhere to these very same rules. And also failed to behave and officiate in an impartial and professional manner. In a court he would be found guilty of gross misconduct

[url]https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/jack-reiss-re-visted-why-this-sorry-excuse-of-a-ref-should-have-been-suspended-with-immediate-effect.630837/[/url]

 

Good win, lets not overhype it though??
Schwarz is a nobody.

Let's see Fury beat someone who is same height and has 15 years more experience... and is faster than him.

 

Fury drains the life force of of guys if he gets speed and length on his shots. He has decent power when he's not a bedraggled weight drained husk.
Tom looked like he would have got badly busted up if Fury kept touching him with single shots.

 

Like i said, grasping at straws. I guess wilder’s own resume is legendary? I also guess wilder wasnt getting completely outboxed and relying on his one and only asset, power. Credit where it is due, wilder has great power but pretending fury is some kind of fake is a bit silly.

 

No, he's not. He can be caught and hurt, and given his out of the ring habits and risky fighting style that's a very real possibility for anyone that can punch a bit and has some craft. Fury's tricky as hell with his movement and switch hitting, but he puts himself in some very precarious situations as a result. He was a whisker away from taking a massive bomb from Joey Abell of all people, and had that landed we might not be having this discussion.

He should school Wilder again if he takes things seriously, but there's always that possibility that he doesn't. Same goes for anyone he gets in the ring with.

 

For anyone out there saying ‘but McDermott beat him’ - give your head a wobble. Fury was 20 years of age and was fighting a seasoned pro, still knocked him out. 9 years on, still unbeaten and he comfortably beats any HW out there with ease

 

He's not unbeatable but I would struggle to name a heavyweight among the current pack who should be a 50-50 proposition against him.
I'd make Fury a favourite against any one of them.
Only a small few would have a decent chance of uspsetting him.

 

Yeah, it was his 8th pro fight I think.
He rematched him 9 months later (in his 11th fight) and stopped him.

 

Who suggested it was legendary? It seems you wish to deflect away from initial discussion, through countering with a strawman point.

There are no threads talking about Wilder being the greatest of all time, or being better than Mike Tyson Lewis etc. Neither would they eve occur had he blown away a stone cold bum.

You'd only here ridiculous thread after thread citing that he fights nothing but bums.

Let me not digress away from the central point here, which is about Fury being unbeatable rather than dwelling on the hypocritical double standards which apply in favor of Fury.

Like I stressed before, it is not clutching at anything, if the ref remains a key figure in the fight. Which is why he did an interview after the fight attempting to explain away his faulty actions.

It is not clutching at straws when Fury is now living off that moment when through the refs assistance he managed to escape rightly being TKO.

It's similar to when Fury's fanboys have to hear about the roids, along with tyson's pathetic resume, there is a cognitive dissonance. They say things like ''it's clutching at straws '' ''All fighters are on roids''

Yet they are the first to call out and talk label other fighters drug cheats, whilst ignoring that Fury and his family are the biggest abusers of them all.

Quick to question Judges scorecards and WBA organisations while suggesting corruption, yet herald Ring Magazine and praise scum like Jack Reiss.

The hypocrisy, the blind over zealous praise, the venomous defense against who critically question, all lead me to conclude Fury has got his brainwashed flock under key and lock.

 

Fury is not unbeatable and Wilder will probably KO him in the rematch and after that the same people praising him right now will say Fury was never any good.

 

There is no such thing as an unbeatable fighter.
If you will fight everyone you will lose. That's why Fury was fighting C level fighter.
Out of three top heavyweights, Fury is the smartest.

 

YES

 

my point was why pick on Fury as the smoke and mirrors fighter? If you try to rip into his career expect people to ask questions if you target him and not certain other fighters that have been protected, or have pretty pathetic resumes themselves.

I say its grasping at straws because the fight is done, both guys had their positives but because you didn't get the result you wanted you proceed with the long count argument, understandable but still grasping imo. I don't go with the corrupt ref thing personally, unless there is some kind of proof? Maybe Fury deserves to live off that a bit anyway as you say, considering the state he was in a year before it was a big achievement. yeah that's getting tired now, I also know you may discount these issues he was facing, but there is no denying he was well over weight and out of it fighting shape wise.

Anyway I feel like I am pretty neutral where Fury is concerned, I see his strengths but he also frustrates me, and if he takes on another soft touch in his next fight I will be very concerned that he is avoiding Wilder. I also don't think he is invincible, Wilder does have a chance, he showed that in the first fight, I just lean towards Fury's boxing skill next time out, and his ability to find a way out of disaster. whatever you think of Fury, he is a fighter that has that ability to adapt and survive.

I am on the same page when it comes to blind followers, but I just respond to what I see. I'll check out your other posts on this though, I am happy to look at other points of view and admit being wrong if I see proof of corruption etc.

 

Course Wilder always in the fight on account of his power but for sure. he's always gonna be down on the cards against Fury.
Fury looked great against a showcase opponent so it's similar to Wilder with Breazele to of get carried away by his win albeit Wilders win was more impressive imo