Ring Magazine, what have you done.

Fury an Oscar fighter is he? Nah, didn't think so.

 

:good

 

because it wasn't the most exciting fight of the year? Fights can be significant without being exciting you know.

 

You must be new to the fight game.

Why would it necessarily have been fight of the year ?

The second biggest win of the year was probably Floyd over Pac.

Neither of these fights would have made the top ten lists for Fight of the year.

The criteria for the two distinctions are quite different.

The importance of the fights fought is a major criterion for consideration in deciding fighter of the year.

The criteria in determining fight of the year include level of skill on display, entertainment value, heart shown, etc.

 

Oscar's rag.

 

He soundly beat a top P4P who hasn't lost in over a decade... One who has never really been outboxed like this.

I think a big part of it was Wlad aging, but it's still a monumental event in boxing.

 

That will usually do it.

I agree.:good

 

I'm sorry, I guess I'm not familiar enough with how these awards are usually given. How can you justify taking who he fought out of the equation? I just can't see how you can judge a fighter's performance without factoring in who he's actually fighting against.

If Fury fought someone who was making his pro-debut and utterly dominated the guy, would that be better?

What if Fury fought a rank 100 guy and went life and death, struggling, going back and forth, etc, only to finally pull out a win after 12 brutal rounds? Would that be better?

I'm not even trying to be rude here, I just don't see your logic.

 

he deserved it. bunch of haters

 

Okay. I can kind of appreciate where you're coming from.

From your perspective, Fury didn't demonstrate any talent, technical ability, skill, etc. Therefore you can't appreciate the win.

I acknowledge there were very few punches thrown, but Fury still looked very impressive and skilled to me. He basically stopped Wlad's punches cold by blocking and constantly moving his head. He charged in at the perfect times to throw Wlad off his game and get in some great hits. He smoothly switched between southpaw and orthodox (I know it gets mentioned a lot, but that's because it really is impressive). He dismantled Wlad's infamous clinch-based style with rabbit punches and bodyshots. He danced circles around Wlad for 10-11 rounds.

He did well enough in my book.

 

Not that far, sonny.

Ali-Liston rematch.

(I did watch Leonar-Duran1 in a large dancehall, live. It was too noisy to hear any sound, but it was the second best fight I've ever seen).

My 'new to the game' comment was in reference to your suggestion that if a win was the most important win of the year, then it had to have been fight of the year.

 

I don't have a problem with the pick. Fury had the best win of the year and nobody else did anything really worth speaking about. It's his award by default. The next biggest win would be Mayweather's victory over Pacquaio in the stinker/fraud of the century. That fiasco got what it deserved, event of the year. But I don't think that Vargas vs Miura should have gotten fight of the year. It would only be my sixth favorite fight in the last twelve months. Personally, I think that if Salido vs Martinez I and II, Afolabi vs Ramirez had been aired on a major US station they would have gotten the honors. Fonfara vs Cleverly and Glowacki vs Huck were but they were all passed over.

 

Fighter is just another way of saying Boxer. So it's really boxer of the year award. If they're going on best wins, Fury takes it.

 

You been watching boxing since jesus was in nappies and you have this pathetically stupid opinion?

You must have downs syndrome, I suppose you are pretty on to it for a downey.

The Furious one was a level above and just scored the most historic win of this millennium.

All I have to say is if not Fury then Who you got nuffy?

 

Deal with it, you racist **** :deal :hey