Would Kenny Norton Have Maybe Troubled Fury?

He was dropped heavily got up on shaky legs and then was rocked again by another right hand later on in the round and almost visited the canvas twice I would call that a struggle yes but keep trying to deflect.

And I assume you're smart enough to realize the Pajkic fight is also when Fury had 16 professional fights ? In which you're using the same example for Norton with the same amount of fights ? Hence that must be relevant aswell in your eyes ?

I also love how you bring Pajkic's size in an attempt to gloss over it the man had 5 stoppages buddy in 18 fights size doesn't equate to being good or having power.

What is the best of Fury BTW ? One fight against Wilder ? I suppose we ignore all the other poor performances and make excuses for them aswell ? What's the excuse for Wallin ? Fury was in good shape and had 29 professional fights at the time.

 

Knocked him out in 3.

That's what counts.

If Norton dragged himself off the floor and finished Shavers, Garcia, Foreman, Cooney etc off he'd be a lot less criticized.

That's what Classic usually does, isn't it? Picks the best version for a H2H? Why is everybody all hangdog when it's Tyson Fury benefitting from this strange system? Wow, talk about double standards around here.

FWIW I believe I already mentioned that Fury is wildly inconsistent. He's quite capable of looking like a tsunami (Wilder2) and then looking like flaming trash a fight later after he trains in a pie factory. I fully expect him to lose to some part-timer in the future.

 

Because the issue is you're picking a single fight rather than a period of say like 2 or 3 years where Fury had numerous good performances. Wilder is extremely limited and whilst he does have power his boxing skills are not of the elite level and Fury should be expected to beat him.

It's nothing to do with "double standards" it's just simply Fury is not as good H2H as you think he is he's had far too many poor performances and you can't make excuses for all of them. And whilst Norton himself has issues vs punchers he's more likely to match up better vs the likes of Usyk, Fury, Parker, who are boxers with average power rather than big bangers like Zhang, Dubois, Bakole, etc.

But the thing is using the Wallin fight for example Fury was in shape for that fight he weighed 254 pounds which is a lighter weight than he weighed in any of the Wilder fights. And yet he still struggled immensely despite being in fighting shape so what's the excuse for that ? Fury had 29 professional fights was considered in his prime and in shape yet still come close to losing.

All in all Fury vs Norton would be a very competitive fight and i've seen nothing in any of Fury's fights that would make me believe he would blow away or dominate Norton.

 

If I had to bet on this fight I'd take Norton, Fury is not a big puncher and I can see Norton landing overhand rights .

 

It’s tough isn’t it, because even Fury who was miles past his best still gave Uysk everything he could handle who is probably the best boxer of this generation. Now Uysk and Norton do fight differently, but having re watched the fight (I scored it for Uysk live and on my second watch) Fury really did dice Uysk up for a good 4/5 round period.

I’m not tryna make Fury out to be a Tokyo Douglas guy, but you cannot look away from the fact that when he fought his best opponents and when it really mattered he always rose to the occasion even when way past his best against Uysk. (I’m aware Uysk is getting in but Fury is clearly further removed from his best than Uysk)

Best version of Fury? You could argue Wilder 2 because at that point he’d had the experience of big fights and was a little more mature, but for me It’s probably the one that beat Wlad and let’s not beat around the bush, the scorecards flattered Wlad and he still lost handily on all 3. That version was the lightest, fastest and sharpest We’ve ever seen Fury and some of his training clips on fight week had him moving like a light heavy at times.

Apart from 3 good fights with Ali, Norton has losses against fighters lesser than Fury. Fury although coming close to losing and getting knocked down by lesser fighters than Norton ALWAYS overcame them and almost managed it against Uysk as well which is why I’d pick him in this fight as the favourite, it’s not a foregone conclusion though.

 

HEY GUYS WHAT ABOUT TOKYO DOUGLAS VS MARCIANO?

HEY GUYS HOW WOULD ZAIRE ALI DO AGAINST HOLMES?

... its S.O.P. around here.

List Fury's numerous losses then. This will be quick.

Yes, your list of 1 (one) is as unimpressive as you knew it would be.

But that's just the thing. While Fury is not a big puncher for his size .... HE'S 270 freaking LBS. Norton weighed 205lb soaking wet for his 2nd Ali fight, for instance. Fury's average power for a guy his size is

This content is protected

when compared to midgets that can barely make modern HW. Even Usyk remarked that it was like fighting "a Yeti".

Have you ever considered a career in comedy? This post could be a cornerstone for a fine opening act on the stand-up circuit.

Even after I posted the Wallin fight where Fury was beating the juice out of Wallin you still have the cojones to post this?

So, Mr Struggled Immensely, here's Exhibit B, in case you didn't actually understand what you saw in that clip:

"Fury won by unanimous decision 116–112, 117–111, and 118–110."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyson_Fury

In other words, he didn't struggle immensely at all, beyond having a nasty cut.

Exhibit C. Maybe Wallin giving his personal assessment of Fury has a bearing on this discussion. Hint: Wallin agrees with me:

"Fury is very good at using his size to his advantage. He uses a lot of feints and he has really long arms, so when he’s feinting you get a reaction and then people don’t know, with his reach, where shots are coming from. So when he’s feinting, it kind of throws people off a little bit. He’s also very awkward and likes to stay on the outside. If you let him get comfortable he will be dancing.
[...]
Leaning on his opponents He does it and it really works for him because he’s so tall and heavy. He’s taller than everyone, so when his opponents come in, he has to lean over them and push them down.
[...] It was very tiring when he did it to me. The guy is 270 pounds and all you’re doing is trying to stand up straight.
[...] I wouldn’t say that he has one-punch knockout power because he hasn’t really knocked anyone out in a long time like that. But he throws a lot of punches for 12 rounds. And he’s a big guy and heavy. So of course he has power. He doesn’t have crazy power like Deontay Wilder, or even Joshua. But it’s more steady. He throws good combinations that will break you down over time.
[...]
He’s really fast for a guy that big. Defense is his footwork, his upper body movement and sometimes his offense is defense, too. That was really his defense against Wilder these last two fights. He took it to him and that made it much easier against Wilder. That was the perfect setup for him. Fury’s footwork, his hand speed, his jab and his feints are very important. His feints will make you think before throwing punches. The feints will make it harder for you to set up your punches because you are forced to react to the feints. You don’t know if a punch is coming at you or not.When Fury’s feinting, you have to react to that. On the outside he’s always a moving target. He’s never a sitting duck."

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/32...tyson-fury-in-my-2019-title-bout-against-him/

I BELIEVE YOU

This content is protected

 

Fury fighting Wallin...Wallin is a 6-6, 240 pound southpaw, with an international amateur career, did Norton ever beat similar? O'Halloran was about that size, football player, no boxing background, not a southpaw and Norton struggled with him just because he was big. If that had been Wallin we'd probably have never heard of Norton. Nobody ever fought a big southpaw like Wallin until recently. Wallin would have had to turn around and fight right handed or he would have starved in the 70s and before, trying to get fights because nobody fought southpaws. A tough fight with Wallin is not a mark against a fighter. Fury made adjustments and won convincingly.

 

Not tough at all Usyk is also considerably past his prime which you fail to mention and still won pretty clearly in the region of 8-4, 7-5, with a 2 point round.

Well he hasn't had that many big fights Wladimir was close to 40 years old and that was a glorified sparring session in which neither man threw a punch in anger in probably one of the worst Heavyweight title fights i've ever witnessed.

He had 1 good performance against Wilder in the 3 fights they had whilst getting dropped 4 times in the process over 3 fights.

Decent performance over Whyte if you want to call that a big fight ? but Whyte had already been stopped twice brutally and had numerous tough fights which took it out of him. Which is why you haven't seen Whyte do anything of note since apart from getting a controversial decision over Franklin who is not a top 10 Heavyweight.

Usyk is 37 years old and has slowed down considerably so it seems a bit baffling to me you're making excuses for Fury but overlooking that Usyk is older and has noticeably slowed down.

Norton lost to Foreman, Cooney, Shavers, 2 of those losses were when Norton was past his prime but they are also amongst the hardest hitting Heavyweights of all time. We know Norton had issues vs punchers but he excelled against boxers and the likes of Ali, Holmes, are better fighters than Fury and have equal amount of power. And Norton took their punches just fine so we can assume Norton would give Fury a very tough fight.

 

Ngannou is an mma fighter lol. I'm not impressed by someone beating barely beating an mma fighter, that is certainly worse than any performance on Nortons record, Ngannou is actually even worse than a super heavyweight like Halloran who Norton beat up.

You said you think Fury from Wilder 2 runs over Norton, unless you misused the term or changed your mind. That's possible. Because what could Fury"running over Norton" mean ? What does run over mean to you being used as figurative language ? If i got it wrong then be specific what that means

Fury has been down 9 times, but he does keep together better. Norton beat him in the rematch. Dominated him. Chisora is the only legit example, He didn't smash "Wallin" and that fight was close. Wallin wasn't even ranked when Fury fought him.

 

Well done YDKSAB. O Halloran doesn't have a single worthwhile win on his resume and was basically used as a stepping stone for whenever somebody wanted to look good against a big lump that was there to get lumped up. Ngannou was at least a champion in a fighting discipline.

It means that he ****s him up and knocks him out.

Well done you can't score fights either, even after I posted the footage.

Here are the results of your "close" fight

"Fury won by unanimous decision 116–112, 117–111, and 118–110."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyson_Fury

 

But Ngannou doesn't have a single win outside of Fury himself, he was ajs easiest fight and a literal mma fighter past his prime on his debut. Do you realize how ridiculous this really is ? Where's the logic ?

The judges scored ggg Canelo 1 a draw and ggg Canelo 2 to Canelo. Judging power !

So you think an agressive Fury beats Norton up and knocks him out ? Thats what i thought you would say. It was pretty much your first comment lol

 

Forgetting size you're always too obsessed with size and thats why you don't think objectively in these type of discussions. Realistically Wallin is not a top 10 Heavyweight and has no notable wins so look at it like that rather than obsessing over size.

Size doesn't mean you're elite realistically Wallin is a solid top 20 Heavyweight nothing more than that.

 

Who cares who is rated top 10 or top 20 by a sanctioning group or a magazine? I could not care less how The Ring or WBA/WBC ranks anybody. I can see that Wallin is a big southpaw with ability and skills. He could give any fighter in history a tough fight and would have been avoided by almost all of them. I don't need to evaluate fighters/fights according to how a magazine or some sanctioning organization rates the fighter. What I see is the only "ranking" I care about.

 

Ight

 

What do you mean you don't care about rankings ? Rankings are normally a good gauge on how fighters are rated and how good they are ? If he was good enough he would've regularly been amongst the top 10 Heavyweights and he wasn't.

The fact is he was an unknown vs Fury then after his surprising performance did nothing of note, and then in his other big fight vs Joshua he got smashed to pieces in 5 one sided rounds.

So whether or not you think Wallin is this or that based on size is irrelevant what matters is who he's beaten which is no one how's he ranked which is not very highly.

All facts not baseless opinions.