Larry Holmes vs Tyson Fury

I agree.

 

Ok, sorry I've been flipping thru.

 

No but I know someone who has.

Anyways my comment was not referring to your personal life, but your inability to address numerous points of mine.

Yes, he had been in numerous wars including with Adamek, and he had been fighting for THIRTEEN YEARS as I've stated. He was also not in "tip top shape" as you claim, as he only had 8 more fights in his career after Fury and won only have of them. You have this weird obsession, with hyping up opponents of Fury who had clearly seen better days, but make all the excuses in the world when Fury so much as struggles with an opponent. When called on it, you double down and dig your heels, and continue attempting to rewrite history instead of admitting you're wrong. Very odd behavior.

 

I'm more apt to believe this if we took away his heart. Holmes was just a great fighter, period.

 

Holmes schools him with his jab

 

He was not in tip top shape? Just look at his body he was jacked for every one of his fights, also I just watched the Adamek fight and it was not a war and yes Cunningham did get dropped a few times in his career, but he never took lots of punishment throughout fights

 

If you don't think their first fight was a slugfest, and Cunningham didn't take significant punishment, I simply don't know what to say. Ffs he was dropped three times!

This combined with other instances of your revisionist history, and refusal to admit you're wrong, not to mention your tendency to pick and choose what to respond to, is very appalling and concerning behavior and can unfortunately only make me assume ydksab.

 

Fury was dropped twice in the first Wilder fight did he take lots of punishment? Klitschko got dropped 3 times against Peter in the first fight and Klitschko didn't take loads of punishment in that fight, it was simply one or a few punches at a few separate points in the fights, it wasn't all the way throughout the fights

 

You're changing the subject. I didn't say their fight was a war solely on the basis of the Knock downs. I only bought up the kds because you're acting like Cunningham didn't so much as get touched. Adamek vs Cunningham was described as a brutal slugfest, and also "a slugfest, fought at a brutal pace" and by Adamek's own admission he "absorbed brutal punishment" but responded by putting Cunningham down three times to pull out a victory. But I don't see facts getting in the way of your blatant agenda, to make out Fury's opponents better than they actually were at the time he beat them, while emphasizing Holmes' performances at 36 years old against a future champion, but making all the excuses in the world for a 25 year old Fury's performance against a past it cruiserweight who was never world-class at heavyweight.

You're an, arrogant, biased, dishonest, narrow-minded, POS who knows nothing about boxing. I'm done with this discussion. Goodbye.

 

Well this would be a great fight, Fury has a good jab and Holmes had a perfect jab but despite these differences the fight could go in any direction, Fury is a brute force very big and skillful which would be a big problem for Holmes, it would be hard to predict this fight...

 

No I am ****ing not, you just don't want to acknowledge anything what I say, you just like to think that you are right all the time and never like to even try and see what anyone else sees, that is what I call narrow minded

 

I have to go with Larry by Unanimous Decision in this.