TYSON FURY VS THE GREATS H2H. WHAT I THINK

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by Charlietf, Mar 24, 2020.


  1. Man_Machine

    Man_Machine Boxing Addict Full Member

    4,603
    2,560
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Jun 9, 2010
    You're wrong; the evidence shows you are wrong and I am tired of going back and forth on this with you.


    If anyone is exhibiting fanboy bias it is you. In fact, you are the living embodiment of fanboy bias.

    It is your general MO to do your best to highlight every single negative aspect - to the point of defamation - of any boxer, who can threaten your precious mind's eye view of the Klitschkos (and Golovkin, where middleweights are concerned).
     
  2. louis54

    louis54 Active Member Full Member

    1,428
    568
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Mar 20, 2013
    Fury would have been trounced by quarry, ellis, bonevena etc had hed been around at that time....fury is of the buddy baer talent pool
     
    Reinhardt and Richard M Murrieta like this.
  3. Reinhardt

    Reinhardt Boxing Addict Full Member

    4,471
    3,860
    Sportsbook:
    39
    Oct 4, 2016

    Your opinion here is inescapable, I think Joe Frazier would wear him out in a 15 round fight since Fury doesn't have the juice to really hurt Joe and Fury has,,,NEVER ,,seen the kind of pace Smokin Joe Frazier would set
     
    louis54 and swagdelfadeel like this.
  4. Entaowed

    Entaowed Well-Known Member booted Full Member

    2,947
    613
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Dec 16, 2012
    Maybe I am unaware of the evidence. But why do you say Fury has been using PEDs for a while?
     
  5. Contro

    Contro Boxing Addict Full Member

    3,952
    3,155
    Sportsbook:
    490
    Jun 7, 2016
    He probably was back then but you think Wlad wasn't dirty? Hahahaha
     
  6. Contro

    Contro Boxing Addict Full Member

    3,952
    3,155
    Sportsbook:
    490
    Jun 7, 2016
    Why is the PED thing being brought up? Most of these ATGs were never even testedfor steroids.
    Steroids were invented in the 50s.

    Wilder himself is plenty suspect with his weight(pure muscle) fluctuations since VADA testing began for the WBC

    And Wlad is the number 2 poster boy for HGH after evander holyfield
     
    George Crowcroft likes this.
  7. Charlietf

    Charlietf Active Member Full Member

    1,199
    946
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Feb 25, 2020
    Jesus what a nonsense comment. Totally biased and nostalgic. No credibility
     
  8. swagdelfadeel

    swagdelfadeel Boxing Junkie Full Member

    7,676
    1,417
    Sportsbook:
    500
    Jul 30, 2014
    Sad thing is, that's one of his better posts :lol: My favorite is Tony Galento beating Tyson.
     
    Charlietf and George Crowcroft like this.
  9. Man_Machine

    Man_Machine Boxing Addict Full Member

    4,603
    2,560
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Jun 9, 2010
    I know this won't answer your specific question but, just for additional information, the summary of a joint statement made by UKAD and the Furys can be seen here:

    This content is protected



    The full decision from UKAD, regarding the Furys, is no longer available on the UKAD site. However, a law blog in Canada, which belongs to Combat Sports Law have uploaded a copy to their site, which can be found here:

    This content is protected




    Within its contents, paragraph 2.1 refers specifically to the fact that Tyson and Hughie Fury "were not put on notice before they were charged......in June 2016 that they may have to account for the presence of the elevated levels of nandrolone metabolites in their February 2015 samples"

    This means that UKAD didn't act on the finding for over a year, which his highly suspect, in its own right.


    In any event, this circumstance led to UKAD having little choice but to resolve the situation with the following conclusion:

    "Hughie Fury and Tyson Fury should be found to have proved source to the required standard, or else UKAD should be found not to have proved intentional ingestion to the required standard, and as a result the presumption arising under UK ADR Article 10.2 that Hughie Fury and Tyson Fury acted intentionally should be deemed rebutted."

    Few papers reported the above conclusion.


    The same reasoning is reiterated in paragraph 3.3, with the added summary evidence:

    "...and because no adverse analytical findings or adverse passport findings were reported in respect of any of the urine and/or blood samples collected from them after February 2015 (including from Tyson Fury on 11 May 2015, 16 July 2015, 8 October 2015, 17 October 2015, 11 November 2015, 13 July 2016, and 4 May 2017; and from Hughie Fury on 11 May 2015, 25 July 2015, 8 October 2015, 17 October 2015, 14 November 2015, 18 July 2016, 29 September 2016, 18 February 2017, 19 April 2017, 8 August 2017, 29 August 2017, and 23 September 2017), therefore in accordance with UK ADR Article 10.8 the competition results they obtained in their fights after February 2015 should not be disqualified."

    This indicates that, even whilst unaware that an adverse finding had been discovered by UKAD, they tested negative in all samples taken after the February 2015 finding, up until being informed and charged in June 2016.
     
    Last edited: Mar 27, 2020
    dinovelvet likes this.
  10. Wass1985

    Wass1985 Boxing Junkie Full Member

    14,110
    2,276
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Feb 18, 2012
    And you don't think any other fighters have been on PED's over the years, it's rife and has been for a long time.
     


Sign up for ESPN+ and Stream Live Sports! Advertisement