Tyson Fury . Genuine great fighter or personality driven legacy?

Just curious as to what part of the comment you just quoted didn't make sense.

 

Not sure where the mockery is - we've both acknowledged you're usually a good poster (and God knows there's plenty on here that aren't!). Sorry if it felt that way, sometimes in a discussion it can feel that way when it's not intended.

It just strikes me as odd that you seem to be arguing that trilogies should be automatic in situations where rematches make 1-1 situations - when you're against rematches to begin with.

I get the argument against rematches, in theory it creates more churn and pushes the better guys to fight more better guys - in practice I think orgs and protection probably means that wouldn't actually happen.

Also, to me, the whole point of having belts is to put a flag in the ground that tells you who the best is - if we allow flukes to go unavenged (as would happen if rematches didn't occur) and keep the best guys away from the belts for a while, then the belt isn't doing it's job... And if you want to point out that dodgy orgs and protectionist managers mean this happens from time to time anyway, I'm with you!

Heck, I'm even fine with the trilogies - if there's a question mark over who should carry the belt forward, let's put it to bed properly by proving who the real champ is... But those don't happen without rematches first.

End of the day, if the system is working right and the best guys are holding the belts, then rematches for shock losses probably help keep the belts where they should be - and trilogies would usually do the same, too.

 

Bubbles has already mentioned some of the areas, I’ll try highlight some more;

“I am against rematches just because you happened to have held the belts hostage via A-side privileges'. If you lose your champion status, you should be knocked back down the rankings and earn it, giving other fighters a fair shot at the title. Otherwise it's just the same fighter or two getting infinite shots at the title while more deserving challengers miss out.”
This whole statement has an incorrect basis. 1. Holding belts hostage means not defending them. AJ is definitely not guilty of this, he defended around 6 times and was a very active champ. (think that’s more than Mike tyson and defo more than usyk or fury).

2. “A side” has nothing to do with it and is not the reason for the rematch happening or not happening. Fury has used his A-side clout to try get out of 2 obligated rematches. He even convinced everyone wilder was being unsportsmanlike in enforcing his contracted rematch for wilder 3, AND he used his A-side clout to get 2 more warm ups prior to wilder 2 rematch-which was also a breach of the agreed contract that wilder allowed him to have.

the inconsistency with judgement is because point 1 and 2 has more in common with fury. Who you are defending. AJ is definitely not benefiting from point 1 or 2.

“So yes, I don't think Wlad should have been entitled to the rematch, nor do I think Fury should be forced to take a fight if he's not mentally capable of doing it (for example, battling a drug addiction).”
3. This is really your personal opinion that you can break agreed signed contracts?
4. Do you believe usyk should have walked away from the fury rematch even if it was contracted? After all he may have been unhappy with that dreadful refereeing and fury’s poor comments after the fight
5. Do you believe any fights contracts moving forward can be breached if you just decide you don’t agree with them anymore?
6. Do you believe other fighters not named fury should be able to pull out of fights at any moment, if they mentally not up for it? Bearing in mind no fighter goes in 100%.
7. If a fighter is mentally incapable of fighting, should they hold a boxing license?
8. who diagnoses that a fighter is mentally not able to fight? A doctor or the fighter?

I can go on and on with this one. It really opens a can of worms.

“I also don't think AJ should have had a rematch against Ruiz automatically, but because he did I feel that Ruiz should have had an equal opportunity to avenge his loss.”
Again, your feelings.
9. AJ vs Ruiz 1 - a contender has been given the opportunity at the unified hw belts against an established champion. As normal protocol, if the contender wins, he must give the champion first refusal for his first defence-this is signed and agreed.
AJ loses and accepts the rematch (many refuse the rematch), so we have Ruiz vs aj 2.
Ruiz lost on his first defence.
All he had to do to call the shots was defend his belt once, but he turned up out of shape, not ajs fault. If Ruiz won the 2nd fight, he could move on freely and forget about AJ.

In contrast, fury beat vlad and didn’t defend against him or anyone else due to personal reasons. A real champ eh

 

Regarding your point about my view on trilogies and rematches, I'm generally against immediate rematches.

However, if an immediate rematch were to occur and the result is 1-1, I feel as if a trilogy is justified. For example Fury/Wilder (only because the draw was controversial) and AJ/Ruiz.

I think we'd be in agreement that the current system in boxing is not working. The fact that Dubios is getting yet another title shot after a KO loss because of his promoter is a prime example of this. Usyk being allowed to defend his WBC title against a non-ranked opponent while the rest of his legitimate options are sidelined is another.

 

1 & 2. Fury, Wilder and now Usyk are perfect examples of boxers holding the titles hostage by not fighting their mandatories or having them carefully selected for them.

Pretending A-side advantage does not exist or benefits fighters wanting rematches? That just has no basis in reality. Plenty of boxers have one sided rematch clauses baked into their contracts, even non-champions.

AJ has had an immediate rematch against every opponent he has lost to with the exception of Dubios. This has allowed him to hold an unfair advantage where you essentially have to beat him twice to become the champ.

3. Yes, it's my opinion. I made that very clear, and I'm allowed one. I don't care about their contracts.

4. If Usyk wanted to retire like Fury did, then absolutely.

5. I think if you retire then yes, break the contract. If there's a penalty then pay it.

6. If you're not mentally capable of fighting then you shouldn't. You want mentally and physically unfit people risking their life in the ring?

7. No they shouldn't. Fury retired and didn't fight another opponent for a couple of years, so is that relevant?

8. Why not both? A contract can be broken you know, it doesn't mean you have to fight no matter what. There are generally other consequences i.e. financial.

9. You didn't really make much sense here. I've made my views on both fights as clear as possible and have likely addressed it in my other points.

 

1. Wilder defended regularly so he doesn’t need pulling into it. Fury and usyk are guilty of this, AJ IS INNOCENT…which is my point that you are arguing against. you said AJ holds the belt hostage but now he doesn’t?

2. In this scenario it was a champion, AJ. I’m not pretending anything, you’re bringing into a simple standard agreement your own conspiracies about A sides. If AJ uses his A-side to get a rematch, why not use it for everything like for Dubois like you said? he got the rematch because it’s standard procedure.

Let’s bring this a bit wider for you to keep it consistent, did fury use his a side benefits to get the usyk rematch? Was this wrong in your opinion?

3. Wow, breaking signed contracts with no repercussions is fine with you?
so your opinion is that being dishonest and a scammer is fine? Or is it just ok if it’s ppl you like?

4. if breaking contracts and scamming ppl is fine with you, why do you complain about potential A side using his strengths to get a better deal?
One gets you in legal trouble, the other doesn’t.

 

@ruffryders I'm not going to argue with you further on this one mate, you're becoming too animated and I'm tired of repeating myself.

I swear some posters act like they're promoters rather than fans. I just want to see good, competitive fights rather than a rotation of the same, tired old fighters cherry picking their opponents.

 

No problem mate. You asked me to explain and I took my time to try assist you.
If you wish to stay upset at an industry out of what seems to be misunderstanding on your personal part, feel free sir.

Fortunately boxing is an open world wide industry where agreements need to be made and stuck to, otherwise it throws the whole system into disarray. Kind of like every other industry in the world.

Most “fans” don’t understand this which is why my earlier I stated I feel sorry for boxing due to the calibre of its “fans” and their lack of understanding.

Zuffa or ufc may be better suited to you. “The competitive fights with no politics or fight contracts” will be on those shows.

The boxing industry (which I have about 20years experience in-not as a fan) however has a solid system which has brought us many good decades. There are issues like in any industry.

 

If he had beaten Usyk then yes I think you could claim he was a great.

But he didn't so no Fury falls short of being great not enough of a resume and wasted too much of his career on pointless fights.

He falls into the category of very good like Bowe two big talented Heavyweights who fell short of being great.

He's still fighting so I guess he can still achieve more but I personally think that ship has sailed.

 

How are you a great fighter and you only do one great thing?

Dethroning Wlad was great.................truly great. Then after that.............................his career was pedestrian, it was basically a good HW career, not great.

 

Good fighter but he wasn't great, no stranger to the canvas either, he gets up but maybe shouldn't have gone down & his performance against Francis Ngannou was unforgivable, a very bad showing against a mere novice, good but not great.

 

Hmm. Let's see,
- He ended the previous Champions 10 year long reign with 18 consecutive Title Defenses who came off of career high wins in his last 4 fights with Povetkin and Pulev.
- He beat Deontay Wilder who has the highest KO percentage in history at that point and had KOed everyone he fought. You may argue his opposition,but even then,show me what other heavyweight champion that did that. George Foreman couldn't even do that in his prime, he failed to knock out 1 guy who was a no one (but the other guy who did survive a KO he knocked him out later, Peralta I think his name was) being 40 with 38 KOs. Now Foremans power was more tested than Wilders as he did KO Lyle and Frazier, but still. Wilder was undefeated and had KOed all his opponents.

But no, Lets instead look at Usyks resume since he is the supposed GOAT shall we;
- He beat AJ when AJ 3 fights ago was KOed by Ruiz and it scarred him to the point of changing his style and he only fought Pulev at 40 after that.
- He Fought Tyson Fury after Fury had been through drug addiction destroying his body, Getting his brains scrambled by Wilder getting knocked down in one of the nastiest knockdowns according to people everywhere talking about how he rose from the dead and getting knocked down several other times. Or how he nearly lost to a UFC fighter.
- Dubois which was good.

Like this is how people judge fighters now. Usyk is the GOAT, Fury is garbage.

 

B

Fury won every Belt/Title available to him bar lb for lb and Undisputed,winning both World honours on the road,his only conqueror being Usyk so far. Fury also made possibly the worst decision to go with Sugar as his Trainer whose Kronk style was never going to work with Fury as he simply does not carry the power to carry out that system.Sugar had him trying to do things he was simply not built to do at the expense of his natural attributes,movement and ring iq . The Trilogy with Wilder also certainly took its toll.Sugar would have been far better for Joshua and Fury should have went with somebody like Ingle imo .

 

No credit for defeating Wilder away from home after being knocked down heavily twice in there first fight they had and being held to a draw (controversial draw by many) then to rematch him taking his undefeated record and WBC belt in Wilders 11th defence of that belt ?

 

No because I don't think highly of Wilder as a fighter. I also thought Fury won every round of the first fight other than the 2 knockdown rounds and even round 12 he came very close to earning a draw for that round, again because Wilder simply isn't very good. Fury's entire career he only did one great thing. Beating Wilder (really) 3 times is not great. Beating Chisora 3 times is not great. Beating Whyte is not great. No one else that he's beaten was a great beyond Wlad. Then he was dominated twice by the best boxer he fought.